Pharyngula

Posted by: Sir Craig | November 3, 2009 3:14 PM

From their home page:

"We are a rational, caring, inclusive community of people from many different backgrounds and traditions."

Apparently not.

Posted by: Aram | November 3, 2009 3:15 PM

That is just... bizarre. Surely there's more to this story that we don't know yet?

Posted by: Michael Caton | November 3, 2009 3:16 PM

As a die-hard libertarian atheist, of course I support her right to speak, even if I disagree strenuously with her politics. I must say that I'm having a hard time believing there isn't a back-story we don't have yet; there are holes in this you could drive a truck through.

Posted by: Valdyr | November 3, 2009 3:23 PM

Apparently, this woman has been a total drama queen about the whole affair, in addition to the Society being dicks. What a mess.

Anyway... a rift of this depth will surely send most of Chicago tumbling back into the swamp.

Posted by: Aenthropi | November 3, 2009 3:25 PM

I have always disliked Chicago and the over-dressed rubs who live in it. So, I will just add this to my lists of why it is a crap-hole.

Posted by: Caine | November 3, 2009 3:29 PM

Oh boy. So many Americans have so much growing up to do.

Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 3, 2009 3:30 PM

I don't know, Ben Stein was more or less disinvited (not officially, true) after being asked to be commencement speaker at the University of Vermont. It's within their rights to do so, as far as I know.

I didn't particularly like that "virtual disinvite," either, though. Nevertheless, no one has a right to speak at someone's mic, and I think she shouldn't have done what she did.

Bad manners, certainly, on both sides. Why not let her talk once invited? And why does she show up where she's not wanted?

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p

Posted by: The Other Ian | November 3, 2009 3:32 PM

Why does she write about herself in the third person on her blog? I feel like I'm reading a Catholic League press release.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 3, 2009 3:41 PM

Glen, I think the difference is this, Ben Stein, through his past actions and words, condemned many of the students that he would have addressed that day as being on the road to mass murderers. Also, if the students wanted to be part of their ceremony, they would have to sit through Ben Stein's set. Sunsara Taylor does not have a history of anti-humanist statements. (That I know of.) Also, the members of the group who were not happy with her as a speaker could do one of two things; avoid going to the meeting when she speaks or counter her statements after her speech while at the meeting.

A ceremony and a meeting are two different things.

Posted by: Sastra | November 3, 2009 3:41 PM

Fascinating story. After Sunsara was invited, I wonder if there was a dispute over whether to un-invite her or not, with the people who wished to take back the invitation arguing that ethical principles ought to trump the argument that "what's done is done?" Had they renewed the invitation, and let her back, then that is now done ... and the dissidents are back in the same place. Both sides are claiming moral high ground.

I'm with PZ on this; once she's been invited, then those who see a contradiction between the subject of her speech and her politics ought to come and challenge her in the questions. Having met Sunsara, I know she's more than happy to defend herself verbally. It makes a better talk, even. As humanists ought to readily realize, and admit.

The arrest seems bizarre. Could it possibly have something to do with mundane matters like video rights and who is using who's equipment?

Posted by: illnoise | November 3, 2009 3:49 PM

This is my first comment here, for what it's worth…

I'm an atheist, but wouldn't consider myself "active" or "devout" anything, "Social" atheism has always seemed weird to me. I see the point of fighting religious misinformation and religion's agenda, but realism, pragmatism, and atheism just sort of seem like normal baseline reality to me, so celebrating them seems strange. It'd be like belonging to a club for people that just love to drink water... well what do you talk about? Water's good, it's good for you, if you don't drink it, you'll die, we don't need to have a meeting about it.

Anyway, I'd heard about that place, the Ethical Humanist Society, and I've kinda been keeping an eye on it because I thought, well, if I ever feel the need to meet other local atheists, that's probably the place. But everything I've seen about it has been disappointing, I have several friends who homeschool their kids, and the EHS hosts some events (dances, etc) for them. I'm not 100% anti-homeschool, but i'm not really comfortable with it either. (to be fair, they're pretty much just renting space from the EHS, but it seems to be a popular venue for them) More than that, it seems like the EHS positions itself more like pseudo-religion, or at least a secular surrogate for the community of a church, and most of the few people I've ever heard talking about the EHS are sort of new-agey ex-hippie types, the EXACT sort of anti-vaccine chicken-pox-party homeopathic trust-fund parents. I guess maybe it's maybe a libertarian, nearly Unitarian sect of atheists, ha.

I realize atheism encompasses a wide variety of people, so whatever they wanna do at the EHS is ok with me, but it seems worlds apart from the sort of pro-science and rational mindset you'd find on this site. So I've kept my distance. But I'm wary of atheist organizations anyway, it's always seemed like arguing over who will be president of the Anarchy Club.

Posted by: stptrck75 | November 3, 2009 3:49 PM

Woh. What the hell? What was the charge against the videographer? Trespassing? Wasn't it a public venue?

How shameful on the "ethics" society. Hypocrites are everywhere.

Posted by: Michelle R | November 3, 2009 3:54 PM

...What the fuck? Why was he even arrested? What's the police's reason?

Posted by: vanharris | November 3, 2009 3:56 PM

The Second City - i don't think so. Seems to me to be way down the list now, if that's how its humanists & rationalists behave.

Posted by: conelrad | November 3, 2009 3:58 PM

I agree with ERV & illnoise. Um, & Groucho Marx.

Posted by: Richard Prins | November 3, 2009 3:59 PM

I guess the red scare is still alive and well. That's not much of a surprise among the pious, but among 'ethical' humanists?

Posted by: Arthur | November 3, 2009 4:01 PM

Ah 'communist'! Like 'atheist', 'communist' is the other thing that really scares Americans.

You can openly promote the most absurd positions in the name of religion or capitalism, including fantastical Randroid libertarianism, and even do it on prime time TV, but woe betide allowing a communist to speak. Gasp.

Thanks PZ for highlighting this garbage.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 3, 2009 4:06 PM

This from a country that thinks government healthcare is communist. Really you guys are so polar on this.

I also fail to see what her politics have to do with morality without gods. Although clearly these guys DO actually need a talk on morality.

Epic fail. I'll remain a flying monkey pharyngulite thank you very much. Much more fun than atheist or humanist.

Posted by: Jack | November 3, 2009 4:09 PM

As you know, PZ, Sunsara gave a thought-provoking talk at the AAI convention. During the Q & A she freely informed us that she was a communist and it didn't seem to cause the slightest bit of consternation in the crowd. Some of her opinions on abortion rights caused disagreement, but it was very civil disagreement. I spoke to her briefly after the talk and told her that it had been fun and interesting to see a real lefty weighing in on this particular political hot potato. Most of the other people I discussed her talk with agreed it had been worthwhile and occasionally provocative. Nobody was intimidated, nobody was appalled, nobody felt the need for censorship or suppression. All very healthy.

So to see this is... very, very depressing.

Posted by: Eamon Knight | November 3, 2009 4:12 PM

The real "rift" in the secular movement is between the Leftists and the Libertarians. It sounds like the EHSC was expecting a nice "safe" talk about atheist morality, basically affirming that we can and should be kind to animals and help old ladies cross the street. However, Taylor was planning on making some more specific moral statements -- ones challenging political/moral beliefs of some of the audience. Cynically, one might spin it that Taylor was planning to hi-jack the topic to ride her own hobby-horse, but I don't know enough to say whether that's true. In any case, it seems to me that, short of actual kookery, debate and free exchange of ideas, rather than shutting down of opposing views, is a core value of Humanism.

Posted by: James Sweet | November 3, 2009 4:20 PM

Oh, guys, these are not atheists at all. They are basically Unitarians, but just don't call themselves that. From their website:

The Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago is a democratic fellowship and spiritual home for those who seek a rational, compassionate philosophy of life without regard to belief or nonbelief in a supreme being.

Not that the incident is made any less shocking because it was perpetrated by new-agers rather than atheists, but these is not an atheist organization.

Posted by: heironymous | November 3, 2009 4:20 PM

Sounds like we got one side of the story. I've been reading the Friendly Atheist comments and the back and forth there is quite lively.

I have no knowledge of what actually happened beyond what I've read, but it looks awfully like a publicity stunt at some level...

Posted by: Murray | November 3, 2009 4:21 PM

One minor correction: The statement she gives in the video takes place the day BEFORE the cameraman was arrested. The statement was on Saturday, and the arrest was made on Sunday morning while Taylor was making a brief informal statement.

At least, that's how I interpret it when I read her press release and watch the video.

Also, can someone tell me what the charges are against the cameraman?

Posted by: Scrambled Stoic | November 3, 2009 4:25 PM

I'm with #5 (and a few others) on this. There is *something* here that Taylor isn't telling us. If this group had been, say, the RNC, then perhaps five cops would pile on some guy and drag him off in cuffs on nothing more than the say-so of the organization's leaders. But this was an organization of atheists -- the most widely distrusted group in America. Even if you throw in a "red scare" factor, I still have serious doubts that five cops will cheerfully risk their badges by publicly arresting some guy for no other reason than that the *head atheist* told them to.

Posted by: CalGeorge | November 3, 2009 4:27 PM

"The reasons weren't clear, other than that some people in the society disliked her politics — she's a communist"

What's wrong with communism? We need more communists in this country. And socialists. And anarchists.

A group full of little McCarthyites is a group I would not want to join.

Posted by: DaveX | November 3, 2009 4:31 PM

I'm with Illnoise-- this group sounds like a bunch of fruitbats. Then again, I'm kinda anti-"group" in general.

Posted by: Marion Delgado | November 3, 2009 4:33 PM

Chicago is not just any American city, by the way:

It's a former populist stronghold, and academically, it's market fundie Mecca.

Posted by: strangest brew | November 3, 2009 4:35 PM

Seems old prejudices do not fade just change cults....because that nonsense is cult behaviour...they are behaving like unethical Christians...or is that just Christians then?

Do not know who the president is...but the republicans will love him like his mom!

Posted by: truth machine | November 3, 2009 4:39 PM

I have to agree with #3 and #5. I feel like we're missing part of the story here.

See http://sunsara.blogspot.com/2009/10/stop-unprecedented-effort-to-cancel.html

...
The letter from Anil Kashyap that justifies his decision to attempt to cancel contains gross mischaracterizations of my views. If for no other reason, this alone would be reason enough why people in EHSC should have the opportunity to hear my views and analysis without a distorting lens. It certainly makes me wonder, did any of these individuals even listen to any parts of my talks or writings which are available on line before trying to cancel this presentation?
In any case, I feel it necessary to set the record straight. Kashyap wrote:

“On the first point, we are an inclusive humanist group. A talk that dwells on ‘Christian fascists’ and characterizes the leading moral problems facing the U.S. as depending critically on “an influx of immigrants from around the world, [and] the entering of women into the workforce in the last generation” is not what we were expecting.”

In fact, the description of my presentation clearly says we live in a time of moral crisis because “the stability and way of life of millions of people are being disrupted by the effects of imperialist globalization.” I give examples of these huge fast-paced changes and instability in people’s lives here and around the world as part what is giving impetus to a resurgence of reactionary fundamentalist religion as people seek something solid, familiar and absolute in a time of such upheaval and change. Kashyap has pulled a snippet of my talk description out of context to imply that I blame society's moral crisis on immigrants and women joining the work force when my actual meaning was clearly just the opposite, including to counter the scapegoating and backlash that a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism engenders against these sections of our population.

Kashyap then objects to my use of the term “Christian fascism” as if this reflects some kind of blind rejection of all religious people on my part. Quite the contrary, using those two words together is precisely a way of specifying that I am NOT referring to all Christians. My use of the words “Christian fascism” is well considered, though it hardly seems that remarkable when describing far right-wing Christian dominionists who murder abortion providers and impede women's access to birth control, apply biblical literalist interpretations to their excoriation of gay people, speak of illegal wars of aggression as god-ordained crusades, deny the solid scientific fact of evolution, and wish to impose Old Testament Mosaic rule as the law of the land. Further, I am hardly alone in describing this phenomenon this way.

If anyone in the Society has sincere doubts as to whether this description fits, please attend my talk as I have reported live from some of the hottest flashpoints of the Christian fascist offensives in this country for years – from Terri Schiavo's hospice to stadiums filled with Christian youth being trained as shock troops by Bush appointees and Navy SEALS to Dr. George Tiller's besieged clinic and funeral and beyond.

The description of my talk clearly states that I will explore countering this with a secular morality. My views on this are informed by my experience and study of how society could be organized differently, by a vision of a world without oppression, mass ignorance, or exploitation, and by a communist morality “rooted in and serving to get to a world without men oppressing women, without a handful accumulating vast wealth at the expense of the many, without white people lording it over people of color, without one country trying to run the whole globe, and a world where critical thought and the scientific pursuit of truth, as well as artistic and intellectual ferment and the flourishing of individuality, are fostered.”

This is the farthest thing from the bigoted anti-immigrant, anti-woman picture Prof. Kashyap implies as a reason for prohibiting this talk.

As a second reason to try and cancel my talk, Prof. Kashyap writes

“Second, instead we had been hoping that you could help us think about how moral, ethical behavior need not depend on a theistic outlook. We did not anticipate that a discussion of this question would look anything like the description you sent. I understand that you have thought further about the talk and not seen any obvious way to adjust it while staying true to your beliefs.”

In fact, the title and focus of my presentation is “Morality Without Gods.” Clearly this is about morality that does not depend on a theistic outlook.

Prof. Kashyap is not correct in saying that I was unwilling or unable to adjust what my talk was about.

In exchanges with other members of the program committee over my talk we discussed whether the focus of my presentation could be shifted to “human nature” but then agreed to stick with the original title on "Morality without Gods. In the course of this we clarified that this was not a talk on the topic of Revolution and Communism. As I wrote committee members:

"Obviously, while focusing on morality without gods, human nature will come up, it would be wrong to bill something as covering BOTH with real substance. So, I went back to what we had originally arranged -- and this title 'Morality Without Gods' is exactly that, a talk about morality without gods (not about communist revolution)."“The only reference to communism in the description is in regards to my orientation -- not in terms of what I am explicating in this discussion.”

At the very last minute, on the basis of these and quite a few other mischaracterizations of the facts, on the basis of fear that was whipped up on an unprincipled basis about my presentation and the supposed harm it would cause EHSC, some people have tried to cancel the speaking engagement. This is not an ethical way to handle disagreements.
...

Posted by: Geds | November 3, 2009 4:43 PM

Aenthropi @9: I have always disliked Chicago and the over-dressed rubs who live in it. So, I will just add this to my lists of why it is a crap-hole.

Yeah...because we're all like that here in Chicagoland. Nice job of generalizing there...

vanharris @27: The Second City - i don't think so. Seems to me to be way down the list now, if that's how its humanists & rationalists behave.

Again, yeah. Because we're all like that here in Chicago.

Take a look at the membership page for the Chicago Coalition of Reason. Note that the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago isn't on the list. It is, in fact, a part of the American Ethical Union, which, as James Sweet pointed out at #41, are more like Unitarians (or possibly the Theosophical Society) than anything else. As such they're closer to religion (or pseudo-religion) than the skeptical or atheist side of anything.

So, really, there is no deep rift in Chicago to speak of, anyway. I don't know what the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago is wandering around and doing, and I'd be willing to bet that a lot of it isn't at cross purposes to the skeptical movement, but they've got their own thing going. And it looks like there's plenty of weirdness and more than a little religion and/or woo to go around.

But, seriously, saying that this shows a big atheist problem in Chicago is like saying, "The Theosophical Society did something crazy. There goes the atheist neighborhood..."

Posted by: Humanistic Jones | November 3, 2009 4:45 PM

Well, this makes me glad that The Humanistic Jones Society of Humanistic Jones has no affiliation with these bastards. Politicized fear flies right in the face of ethical discovery through rational discourse.

Posted by: Ferrous Patella | November 3, 2009 4:46 PM

Ferrous Patella thinks it is odd that Sunsara Taylor writes so much about herself in third person.

Posted by: James Sweet | November 3, 2009 4:48 PM

Okay, here's the EHSC's side of things.

And uh, it seems this woman's views are pretty whack. Communism, fine, I'll just disagree with you strongly. From what I understand, she advocates revolutionary dictatorship. Um, no, sorry, anybody who advocates any kind of dictatorship is an asshole in my book.

It seems that a nigh-Unitarian group (they are NOT atheists, they are inclusivists like the UUs) with a bunch of old people and young children for members accidentally invited an angry revolutionary to speak at their Sunday service -- which was really dumb on their part -- and once they found out what was going on, they cancelled the talk... after which said angry revolutionary decided that these elderly nigh-Unitarians must be a fascist tool of Western imperialism. Everything else that happened pretty much followed normally from there...

Posted by: truth machine | November 3, 2009 4:52 PM

Ferrous Patella thinks it is odd that Sunsara Taylor writes so much about herself in third person.

Ferrous Patell is apparently a fool, as the link is to a press release designed to be copied and pasted elsewhere, e.g. http://www.revcom.us/a/182/news_flash-en.html

Posted by: The Swede | November 3, 2009 4:52 PM

I would not take lectures in morality from a communist, any more than I would from a fascist.

Is this a typical example of the level of comprehension Americans in general have of what communism actually is? It's about the saddest comment I've read all day, and I read pretty much everything around this story.

Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 3, 2009 4:56 PM

The good Rev @ #2 wrote:

Must. Resist. Lame. Taze joke.

Don't meme me bro.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Posted by: Caine | November 3, 2009 5:00 PM

Matt H. @ 56:

I would not take lectures in morality from a communist, any more than I would from a fascist.

Longing for McCarthyism?

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 3, 2009 5:01 PM

-Okay, here's the EHSC's side of things.-

Ok, so they are unitarian. Cool, not atheist (so no true scotsman doesn't apply) and apparently its all her fault (say the unitarians).

Excuse me while I get popcorn.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 3, 2009 5:02 PM

Sorry, arrested on the insistence of, not maced obviously, in my 72....

Posted by: BdN | November 3, 2009 5:05 PM

OT : Vatican protests ruling on crucifixes in Italy

The Vatican has denounced a ruling by the European court of human rights that said the display of crucifixes in Italian public schools violates religious and educational freedoms. Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi says the crucifix is a "fundamental sign of the importance of religious values" in Italian history and culture.

And what are the main arguments, made by the government itself ? "[...]Italy's government [said] that it was a national symbol of culture, history, identity, tolerance and secularism." And from the Italian's Bishop conference : "The multiple significance of the crucifix, which is not just a religious symbol but a cultural sign, has been either ignored or overlooked,".

Where have I heard this before ?

Posted by: Newfie | November 3, 2009 5:06 PM

After reading the post that James linked at #65, I'd contend that regardless of Ms. Taylor's opinions, she has demonstrated herself to be both a Drama Queen, and an Attention Whore. No sexism intentionally inferred or intended. I, and countless others have used these 'forum/message board' terms to describe actions, not gender.

Posted by: Marion Delgado | November 3, 2009 5:08 PM

And the person who sent Ms. Taylor the letter saying he and others in the EHS wanted to cancel the talk was not just any Chicago humanist, either:

Prior to joining the Chicago Booth faculty in 1991, Kashyap spent three years as an economist for the Board of Governors for the Federal Reserve System. He currently works as a consultant for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, and serves as a member of the Economic Advisory Panel of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and as a Research Associate for the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

Posted by: James Sweet | November 3, 2009 5:13 PM

As far as the idea that the EHSC should not have dis-invited her... I somewhat agree, but I also have this really funny mental image in my head... Of all these Unitarian pussies sitting in the pews with traumatized looks on their faces while a caricature of an angry 60s revolutionary rants about the imperialist oppressors and how the EHSC is a fascist tool of those who would silence dissent... heh, maybe that's an unfair mental image, but that's what I see in my head.

It really sounds like bad decisions were made all around...

Posted by: truth machine | November 3, 2009 5:15 PM

After reading the post that James linked at #65, I'd contend that regardless of Ms. Taylor's opinions, she has demonstrated herself to be both a Drama Queen, and an Attention Whore.

Oh, right, because an obviously false set of claims, refuted in the comments, is proof of that.

No sexism intentionally inferred or intended. I, and countless others have used these 'forum/message board' terms to describe actions, not gender.

The terms are deeply sexist in origin, connotation, as well in application, despite a few cross-gender instances. Calling SC ...

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 3, 2009 5:17 PM

-After reading the post that James linked at #65, I'd contend that regardless of Ms. Taylor's opinions, she has demonstrated herself to be both a Drama Queen, and an Attention Whore.-

Let us hope for your opinion then that said post is accurate.

mmm...popcorn. Where is Cuttlefish when you need him?

Posted by: Newfie | November 3, 2009 5:20 PM

The terms are deeply sexist in origin, connotation, as well in application, despite a few cross-gender instances. Calling SC ...

Well, I can't control what people choose to infer. Please feel free to call the Political Correct internet police and have me arrested. Or, grow a pair. (that thar was intent)

Posted by: truth machine | November 3, 2009 5:21 PM

What's ignorant about it, asswipe?

The pathetically shallow political understanding it reveals, fuckface.

Posted by: truth machine | November 3, 2009 5:23 PM

Well, I can't control what people choose to infer.

You also can't control the fact that you're too stupid to understand what I wrote.

Posted by: James Sweet | November 3, 2009 5:23 PM

The pathetically shallow political understanding it reveals, fuckface.

If I parse you correctly, you are saying, "If you disagree with my politics, then you are ignorant."

Okay, done responding to this guy I guess....

Posted by: sailor | November 3, 2009 5:29 PM

Dis-inviting her was rude but possibly excusable.
Bringing on the cops to beat up on her video photographer was totally inexcusable. We all know the cops are likely to taser and beat up almost anyone without much justification, so they should only be called as a very last resort. There was not need for violence. In my opinion, if those responsible for this mess do not resign, it is up to all members to stop being members of this inexcusable organization.
Otherwise we humanists and freethinkers have not moral standing.

Posted by: Newfie | November 3, 2009 5:32 PM

You also can't control the fact that you're too stupid to understand what I wrote.

If that were the case, I wouldn't have felt a need to explain the usage of the terms that I chose to type. But I did for your benefit, to no avail. In other words, you didn't get it, or chose not to get it. If that makes me stupid in your view, so be it.

Posted by: truth machine | November 3, 2009 5:36 PM

no, that was ridicule, and great theatre.

Yes, I know that, numbskull. But it was also dramatic and attention-seeking.

Nothing at all, except that it was a private meeting. She was asked not to disrupt, but proceeded to anyway.

You are misinformed.

Gender here, is irrelevant.

And disingenuous.

Posted by: Geds | November 3, 2009 5:39 PM

Newfie @101: In other words, you didn't get it, or chose not to get it.

If it walks like a troll and quacks like a troll...

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | November 3, 2009 5:43 PM

P.S. When PZ smashes communion crackers, is he being a Drama Queen and Attention Whore?

Yes, he is. But an intelligent and effective Drama Queen of the sort that the world needs much more of.

What exactly is wrong with dramatically calling attention to your concerns -- other than it being unbecoming in women, who should remain silent?

When the pettiness of the way you go about it leads you to a conflict against a group which is mostly sympathetic to your views, it's simply stupid. This sort of thing presents leftists in exactly the light that conservatives like to see them in: confused, incoherent, and juvenile.

Of course I'm not saying that the EHSC behaved well either - but at some point the responsibility to respond appropriately (and effectively) to their snubbing has to fall on Taylor's shoulders. It seems like she could've easily turned this to the benefit of her cause... but how did she respond?

Reading the varying accounts of what happened, I have a hard time accepting the rationale of people seeing this as an attack on "free speech".

It seems more like "childishness vs. incompetence".

Posted by: truth machine | November 3, 2009 5:46 PM

I voted to cancel Ms. Taylor's program.

All the worse for you. In any case, at #65 is a link to a statement by "an officer on the Board of Trustees of the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago" who claims that Ms. Taylor was not dis-invited; perhaps you can set her/him straight.

One of the commenters suggesting visiting the Friendly Atheist. I second that.

Hemant Mehta stands by Ms. Taylor, as do Mark Crispin Miller, Massimo Pigliucci, George Francis Kane of the Minnesota Atheists, and others.

One of our members gives a complete account of the events.

Not at all one-sided, I'm sure.

Posted by: Kraid | November 3, 2009 5:49 PM

Blech, another discussion about free speech vs. gendered insults.

And here my money was on the "she's hot" vs. "you're not allowed to say that" debate.

Posted by: CalGeorge | November 3, 2009 5:53 PM

"...she has demonstrated herself to be both a Drama Queen, and an Attention Whore."

Not exactly a pro-feminist thing to say.

Posted by: truth machine | November 3, 2009 5:55 PM

When the pettiness of the way you go about it leads you to a conflict against a group which is mostly sympathetic to your views, it's simply stupid.

As opposed, I suppose, by the more sophisticated stupidity you display with this gross mischaracterization. The conflict came about because of the pettiness of the group in canceling a talk that had been scheduled for months.

Posted by: John | November 3, 2009 6:00 PM

She seems to have quite a distorted view of capitalism, and, to be honest, of Communism.

Her site telling me that everything that I've heard about communism is wrong is just silly, and writing it all in caps does not make the case any more persuasive.

It does decry state brutality, which of course never happens in communist states, but unfortunately it does not actually try to justify communism as an economic system, which is a bit of an oversight, I fear.

Posted by: EB | November 3, 2009 6:00 PM

"Communism and objectivism two sides of the same coin?
Does the misinformation run that deep? That a cobbled together, incomplete and trivially nutjob "philosophy" is considered equivalent with a political and financial instrument in actual use in many places around the world, and for the most part with the major issue that America tends to boycot them? Except China, of course, which is gladly pushed ever upwards.
I thought McCarthyist paranoia and ignorance was long gone. Seems I was mistaken."

Well, perhaps I was being slightly ambiguous, but certain aspects of Karl Marx the moralist prophet and Ayn Rand the "philosopher" are too similar to ignore. Marx's confidence that history has a direction (Hegel) leading to a utopia, which is based upon Marx's belief of the rational, generous human who rationally feel greater alliance to class than religion, culture, etc. is analogous to Ayn Rand's belief of the emotionless, ever-rational John Galt. Both falsifiable claims of what human beings are which have been falsified.

The New Jerusalem of Marx after revolutions and the world of the free John Galt? Both seem to be utopian delusions that only a seven-day adventist could really grasp.

This leads to what I was really referring to, the claim that Rand advocated an inverted Marxism. In the Marxist analysis, workers produce all value, and capitalists merely leech off their labor. Rand posited the opposite. In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt, leads a capitalist strike, in which the brilliant business leaders who drive all progress decide that they will no longer tolerate the parasitic workers exploiting their talent, and so they withdraw from society to create their own capitalistic paradise free of the ungrateful, incompetent masses.

And, considering countries China, the CPC has a very difficult time of defining what Communism is (which, I believe may be a problem in this post). Ideology isn't as important as China in the past. Mao once based ideology on wealth repudiation and now the whole paradigm is to be wealth is glorious. What "Communism" currently is in China is actually fairly nuanced.

To even mention communism is to beg, what Marx (are we talking about Marx the English economist or the political hack) or which communism (Leninism, Trotskyism, perhaps the Frankfurt School)?

Excuse me for my McCarthyist paranoia and ignorance...I was just trying to have a conversation. My mistake.

Posted by: Allegra | November 3, 2009 6:02 PM

Tiny volunteer-run organizations always pull crap like this. I was horrified to learn that the UU church I attend had invited an imam to speak, and he did, and I stayed away. (It was apparently an unmitigated disaster, with crickets chirping at the end).

The Humanists should have let her speak and let the attendance speak for itself. I'm sure folks would have stayed away in droves, and nobody would have had to look like an idiot except the person who set it up. Now it's a megillah, and what really cheeses me off is that there will likely be lawsuits, which will impair the ability of the Humanist group to do ANYTHING for good, whether it's a godless facsimile of Sunday School or not. The noodly tentacles of the Pastiferous One are thrashing in dismay.

Posted by: CJO | November 3, 2009 6:02 PM

Especially since the word "whore" is gender-neutral.

You cannot be serious.

Posted by: Bentham | November 3, 2009 6:06 PM

Are there suggestions for alternatives to "drama queen"? (I don't have much need for "attention whore".)

If you had told me that there was an objection to drama queen on one of the sites that I frequent, I would have guessed it to be considered homophobic rather than misogynistic.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 3, 2009 6:07 PM

We're gonna need more popcorn.

Posted by: Caine | November 3, 2009 6:09 PM

EB @ 92:

to simply brush off what Matt H. said about Communism as ignorance or McCarthyism is totally unfair.

I didn't say his (Matt H's) comment was McCarthyism - I asked if he was longing for it. A kneejerk comment is easy to spot, and Matt H hasn't been back to defend his kneejerkiness.

Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 3, 2009 6:10 PM

Are there suggestions for alternatives to "drama queen"?

Bill Donohue.

Posted by: BdN | November 3, 2009 6:14 PM

"As in Richard circa American Gigolo"

Yep.

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | November 3, 2009 6:15 PM

As opposed, I suppose, by the more sophisticated stupidity you display with this gross mischaracterization. The conflict came about because of the pettiness of the group in canceling a talk that had been scheduled for months.

Too much anger, TM. If you see this as a situation where 'absolute right' is being oppressed by an 'absolute wrong', I'm afraid you're not seeing very much.

Consider this: it sounds like the EHSC is anything but a homogenous group. There was probably an active group of people, on a committee, who organized the event. They probably planned it, presented it to the head honcho there, and got the ok to do it. Then, much later, when they announced it in their newsletter or whatever, they got a lot of feedback from the larger, more passive body of the organization saying that people aren't comfortable with it.

They misjudged what they were getting into and how their members would react. So they panicked and cancelled it.

Wrong: yes, of course.

But not a villainous attack on free speech - Just the common sort of amateur bureaucratic bullshit. I'm not saying that this is exactly what happened, but - as someone who's been involved in organizing edgy events for a long time - I'm saying it's pretty damn likely.

Now, from Taylor's position, what would be an effective way of responding to this? She had several options: and the one she picked is certainly not the best.

Posted by: defective robot | November 3, 2009 6:23 PM

Aenthropi @ #9,

I was wondering why it was so much sunnier today: the fact that you'll never set foot in Chicago made it that much nicer!

Posted by: Brian English | November 3, 2009 6:34 PM

PZ, have a read of this hate filled article.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/a-plague-of-atheists-has-descended-and-catholics-are-the-target-20091103-hv52.html

Posted by: Kraid | November 3, 2009 6:36 PM

After reading the comments on Friendly Atheist, my tentative conclusion is that all parties (EHS, Ms. Taylor, and the cops themselves) are at fault. Maybe it was a dick move to uninvite her, but they did have reasons for doing so beyond her being a communist. It was a dick move for her to demand the EHS's time... like it or not, it's theirs to allocate. It was also a dick move for her to stage a walk out on the EHS's normally scheduled Sunday program (yes, she was rallying a walk out, not just leaving to give her talk elsewhere). It was a dick move for the EHS to give the cops the signal to attack without so much as a verbal warning to Ms. Taylor or the camera guy. And finally, it was a dick move for the cops to mace the camera guy after he was already incapacitated.

As an aside, the phrase "dick move" has been included intentionally. I wonder whether it caused a swell of righteous indignation in the same people who object to "drama queen." Oddly enough, I suspect that the answer is no.

Posted by: Damian | November 3, 2009 6:42 PM

Glenn Beck is the president of the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago? Weird.

Posted by: Kate | November 3, 2009 6:47 PM

I'm glad that some of the commenters here are satisfied with Internet and pub-based community. Other humanists want ethical education for their children, social-service opportunities, life ceremonies, inspirational meetings, and yes even to celebrate the changing seasons and listen to music. None of these things are "woo"; they are natural human needs, and Ethical Societies exist to serve those needs.

It's a shame that the EHSC invited Sunsara to speak without knowing her views. I'm not sure why they decided to have her give a workshop on Saturday rather than just give the Sunday platform with a big fat disclaimer on how her views don't necessarily reflect those of the Society. It's a shame Sunsara and her organization decided to disrupt the meeting, and it's certainly a shame if anyone was hurt, the videographer and the officer. I can't say more than it's a shame about anything because I don't know the actual facts, and it's my understanding that science has something to do with gathering information from many sources and testing assumptions, and that this blog has something to do with science.

Posted by: Twisted_Colour | November 3, 2009 6:50 PM

Australia gets its own Bill Donohue.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/a-plague-of-atheists-has-descended-and-catholics-are-the-target-20091103-hv52.html

Posted by: truth machine | November 3, 2009 6:52 PM

Ferrous Patella was taking advantage of an opportunity to be ironical, which is foolish in one sense of the word. Ferrous Patella also recognizes the format of a press release and Sunsara Taylor's blog post does not take that form. It does very much take the form of, well a blog post. Finally, Ferrous Patella is automatically suspicious of any moniker with the word "truth" in it.

Ferrous Patella is being a disingenuous idiot, as the item is clearly in the form of a press release,not a blog post -- one strong indication being that it refers to "Sunsara Taylor", not "I".

There's a lot such disengenous idiocy here, like claiming that "whore" and queen" are gender neutral -- not just in their application, but in their origin and semantics. As I said earlier, nothing like a communist woman to bring this sort of thing forth.

Posted by: Brian English | November 3, 2009 6:57 PM

@147, Craven does come off as Crocodile O'Donahue doesn't he?

@148, Was it an intelligent designer or an evolved simulacrum?

Posted by: truth machine | November 3, 2009 7:00 PM

Too much anger, TM. If you see this as a situation where 'absolute right' is being oppressed by an 'absolute wrong', I'm afraid you're not seeing very much.

Here's the sort of disingenuousness I refer to. You claimed that the conflict between individuals in sympathy with each other was brought about by pettiness on the part of Ms. Taylor, whereas I noted that it came about from the Society canceling her talk. Since mine is a parallel construction with yours, if I am talking about absolute right and wrong then so are you. Of course, I'm talking about no such thing, I'm simply correcting the record -- the conflict was initiated by the society, which acted pettily in withdrawing its invitation to speak.

Posted by: truth machine | November 3, 2009 7:03 PM

From the person that doesn't understand sarcasm when someone complains about the use of the third person in the third person.

You are beyond clueless. That FP was being satirical (sic) is obvious but not the point.

Posted by: truth machine | November 3, 2009 7:06 PM

in fact, it is often used to insult a male precisely because it is a gendered term

As I said, deeply sexist.

Posted by: Ferrous Patella | November 3, 2009 7:11 PM

Wow. Two different posters using "disingenuous" in back to back posts. Odor des Socks, maybe?

truthiness, Please send along this link (http://www.mediacollege.com/journalism/press-release/format.html) to Sunsara Taylor. You must be *very* close to her to know her intentions so well.

Posted by: EB | November 3, 2009 7:12 PM

Swede @136

It's nice to our discussion, "a matter of both perspective and debate", has matured from suggestions of paranoia and ignorance.

I would point out that Objectivism has been exposed to the real world. See Alan Greenspan or many other leading member of a conservative/libertarian lobby group or tea baggers screaming "let's go Galt!". So, the point of exposure to reality seems mute.

Secondly, I don't think it's such a trivial observation. I'm just not convinced. Both when it came to politics or morality they were mostly wrong or fairly delusional. Hegelian prophecies are as religious as it gets.

Both were right on some aspects (though Rand entirely unoriginal) and both perpetuated arrant nonsense. Objectivists have no issue of the poor dying in front of their eyes---they deserve it. And is it any wonder when Marx ranted about political utopias that such mantras of "a few eggs must be cracked to make an omelet" would be justified? Using such logic and tone, it's no wonder his writings became text for a world religion. It's therefore unsurprising that Stalin would kill/exile 15 million peasants because Marx had once written 5 chapters on primitive accumulation. The coin analogy still seems to hold.

Anyway, it seems we've both said what we wanted to on the subject.

Posted by: truth machine | November 3, 2009 7:16 PM

It's what I'd like to hear from your side.

The explanation is in the letter from Anil Kashyap given (or at least excerpted) at http://sunsara.blogspot.com/2009/10/stop-unprecedented-effort-to-cancel.html

“On the first point, we are an inclusive humanist group. A talk that dwells on ‘Christian fascists’ and characterizes the leading moral problems facing the U.S. as depending critically on “an influx of immigrants from around the world, [and] the entering of women into the workforce in the last generation” is not what we were expecting.”

“Second, instead we had been hoping that you could help us think about how moral, ethical behavior need not depend on a theistic outlook. We did not anticipate that a discussion of this question would look anything like the description you sent. I understand that you have thought further about the talk and not seen any obvious way to adjust it while staying true to your beliefs.”

“In light of all this, our committee does not want to proceed with this presentation. I understand you have many groups who wish to hear you speak. It makes no sense to bring you to speak to an audience who will not be interested in or enthusiastic. (I gather that others in the society were trying to set up a workshop but, as far as I can tell, no one had signed up for that either.)”

See, no one at the Ethical Society was interested or enthusiastic about hearing her speech. No, really, that's why; cross my heart.

Posted by: CalGeorge | November 3, 2009 7:21 PM

"You call the Society's lack of public statement stonewalling. Please consider the possibility that the Society is run by a few volunteers who have families and day jobs and have an internal crisis to manage. Communicating with the outside world is a secondary consideration and indeed I don't see that it is our obligation."

You could start working your way back to sensibility by contemplating some Bob Dylan:

Well, I was feelin' sad and feelin' blue,
I didn't know what in the world I was gonna do,
Them Communists they wus comin' around,
They wus in the air,
They wus on the ground.
They wouldn't gimme no peace. . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnZoHzFDaI8

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | November 3, 2009 7:22 PM

There's a lot such disengenous idiocy here, like claiming that "whore" and queen" are gender neutral -- not just in their application, but in their origin and semantics. As I said earlier, nothing like a communist woman to bring this sort of thing forth.

Oh come off it. Whether it was a 'christian fascist' man; or a Martian objectivist; or an anarchist basset hound - it'd still be as idiotic.

There are some worthwhile and extensive comments on the Friendly Atheists by people who were there (expressing very some contrasting perspectives on the incident).

Here's the sort of disingenuousness I refer to. You claimed that the conflict between individuals in sympathy with each other was brought about by pettiness on the part of Ms. Taylor, whereas I noted that it came about from the Society canceling her talk. Since mine is a parallel construction with yours, if I am talking about absolute right and wrong then so are you. Of course, I'm talking about no such thing, I'm simply correcting the record -- the conflict was initiated by the society, which acted pettily in withdrawing its invitation to speak.

Um... no, that's simply not what I said. I said they've both behaved stupidly: The EHSC's stupidity seems likely to be a failure of organization, which I called incompetence. Taylor's stupidity is not responding to this in a reasoned way. If you think her response was reasonable, perhaps it'd be more worthwhile to explain why you think so rather than insulting others for simply disagreeing with you?

By the way: if it's necessary for you to call others "stupid" or "disingenuous" in order to make your point, it really throws the value of what you have to say into question. I'm interested in what you have to say about this situation, not what you assume about my intelligence or motivations. Show some decency, please.

Posted by: kopd | November 3, 2009 7:25 PM

How much?

As much as it takes to get through to you that I was not trying to be hypocritical and was just overly confident about my understanding of the English language. But now I know better. I know to assume that I am wrong and anything a Pharyngulite tells me about the etymology and usage of a word is correct, whether they back it up or not. I know that "drama queen" and "attention whore" are deeply sexist in origin, connotation, as well in application because TM told me so. And I know I'm disingenuous because you told me. Thank you.

Posted by: truth machine | November 3, 2009 7:29 PM

More on this exciting subject:

http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/842/Whore-and-Whoreson.html

This ancient and enduring term is one of the few insulting epithets that has never lost its power, whether used in the older narrow sense of “prostitute” or more generally, in the words of the Oxford English Dictionary of “an unchaste or lewd woman; a fornicatress or adulteress.” Other strong terms like bitch, bastard , and bugger have all acquired humorous, ironic, or jocular tones, but whore remains powerfully condemning. As the entry for prostitutes shows, numerous synonyms like harlot, concubine, strumpet , and quean have become part of the word-field, but most are now archaic. The emotive power of whore also explains the need for a steady supply of euphemisms, such as the modern escort and the more recent sex-worker (1982), styling the person neutrally as a labor unit. There are many archaic compounds, such as whoremonger and whoreson , as well as male forms such as he-whore . A recent development has been the extended use to anyone who sells out their principles, found in P.J. O’Rourke’s polemical title The Parliament of Whores (1991).

"anyone who sells out their principles" -- you know, like women do when they exchange sex for money from men.

Yeah, I'm tm's sockpuppet. I'd be a hell of a lot smarter, so fine by me.

Ah, but I misspelled it.

Posted by: kopd | November 3, 2009 7:33 PM

@TM

Disingenuous: -adjective
lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere:

You may have shown I was mistaken. Your accusation of "disingenuous" is still baseless.

"Insult machine" may be a more accurate name for you.

Posted by: Newfie | November 3, 2009 7:37 PM

Ok, fuck being nice...

Truth Machine, and CJO are both fangirl, feminazi cunts. Stupid, angry dimwitted, twats. Looking to take offence wherever the fuck they can find it. They add nothing to the discourse, and just seem to be standing up for some fucking whiny bitch, who had her parade rained on. Boo fucking hoo.

Can we have another round of survivor? Please?

Posted by: truth machine | November 3, 2009 7:40 PM

Truth Machine, and CJO are both fangirl, feminazi cunts. Stupid, angry dimwitted, twats. Looking to take offence wherever the fuck they can find it. They add nothing to the discourse, and just seem to be standing up for some fucking whiny bitch, who had her parade rained on. Boo fucking hoo.

I'm glad that we can now put the question of sexism firmly to rest.

Posted by: kopd | November 3, 2009 7:42 PM

"anyone who sells out their principles" -- you know, like women people do when they exchange sex for money from men people.

You are saying that nobody has ever thought ill male prostitutes? If that's true then I am surprised.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 3, 2009 7:44 PM

Gee, I never thought I would say this, but I really wished strange gods was here....:-)

Walton,

And I would suggest that, in this case, they were quite right to revoke the invitation. Neo-Communists are apologists for one of history's most evil and destructive dogmas

The issue here is that they acted incompetently to not check on her opinions properly before they invited her, not whether communism is good or bad.

Posted by: Newfie | November 3, 2009 7:47 PM

I'm glad that we can now put the question of sexism firmly to rest.

It's what you wanted. Whatever it takes to make you shut the fuck up. I'm more than happy to take one for the rest of the reasonable folk here.

Posted by: Xenithrys | November 3, 2009 7:48 PM

@ 139 & 148:

"Catholic University", like "Islamic University", is a genuine oxymoron. It can't be a university if it's sectarian.

Posted by: truth machine | November 3, 2009 7:49 PM

It's what you wanted.

No, it's what you are.

I'm more than happy to take one for the rest of the reasonable folk here.

The reasonable folk here are the ones who aren't sexist scum to their core. Even folks like kopd are just rationalizing away sexism, they don't have it in their blood.

Posted by: kopd | November 3, 2009 7:54 PM

You're either disingenuous or very very stupid ... or both.

It was a serious question, you pompous fuckwit. I'm not as familiar with the history and cultural norms surrounding prostitution as you appear to be. Is it really the case that female prostitution has always been frowned upon and male prostitution has never been? That is what you implied in your statement about women selling out their values by selling sex.

You know what, don't bother answering. It will just be another insult with nothing of merit to add to the thread. This thread has turned into your grandstand to rail against sexism wherever you can find it.

Posted by: Lion IRC | November 3, 2009 7:58 PM

Hi PZ Myers,
I thank and congratulate you for your criticism of this type of behavior. I could not agree more (and I hope that does not cause you to reconsider) If your opponent is wrong - all the more reason to let them speak. (Sun Tsu said never interrupt your opponent when they are making a mistake. Abraham Lincoln agreed in similar terms about opening your mouth and removing any doubt)
"free discussion of ideas by ....people"
"the resolution of disputes by dialog and discussion"
Well spoken!
Lion (IRC)
PS - I have read the Dungeon Admission Standards and I am very confident I can happily comply with the restrictions on being "foul mouthed", racist, misogynist and homophobic.
Insofar as some are open to wider interpretation I will keep in mind the thin ice on which I am skating.

Posted by: kopd | November 3, 2009 8:00 PM

I'm not as familiar with the history and cultural norms surrounding prostitution as you appear to be.

That was not intended as a sexist insult, by the way, though you will probably take it as one.

Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 3, 2009 8:03 PM

0!0
O

munch, munch, munch, slurp.

Posted by: truth machine | November 3, 2009 8:12 PM

I'm not as familiar with the history and cultural norms surrounding prostitution as you appear to be. Is it really the case that female prostitution has always been frowned upon and male prostitution has never been?

No, moron. Consider again the OED definition for whore: "“an unchaste or lewd woman; a fornicatress or adulteress.” What do we call an unchaste or lewd man or a fornicating or adulterous man? Consider further: "As the entry for prostitutes shows, numerous synonyms like harlot, concubine, strumpet, and quean have become part of the word-field, but most are now archaic." Can you give me the comparable words for men? It takes willful ignorance to be so blind to the "history and cultural norms" surrounding sexist terminology.

Posted by: Mattchoo | November 3, 2009 8:15 PM

@ Truth Machine #84 - I think the officer intended that they had never uninvited a speaker in their history, until now. He said that she was voted 5-2 (or was it 7-2) to be uninvited based on a submitted talk that was different from the one that was initially approved. He later says that the arrest was another first in their very long history. Why do you doubt the officer?

Posted by: Newfie | November 3, 2009 8:20 PM

No, moron. Consider again the OED definition for whore:

Words never change meaning or intent. Language doesn't evolve. So speaketh the Truth Machine.
Methinks the machine could use an upgrade.

Posted by: truth machine | November 3, 2009 8:27 PM

Words never change meaning or intent.

The strawman of a deeply stupid and dishonest person busy rationalizing sexism by ignoring its entire history.

Posted by: Newfie | November 3, 2009 8:32 PM

Yes, Deary. I'm famous on this site for all of my misogynistic posts.

.. and because you can't seem to distinguish intent within the English language, I'll tell you right now, that I'm using "Deary" as if I'm talking to a child right now. Please show us again how you spin words, when the intent is clearly spelled out for you... come on, don't disappoint the popcorn crowd.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 3, 2009 8:38 PM

I wonder how many of the objectors would similarly call out 'nascar dads' or 'macho male posturing' as deeply offensive.

Except there's a basic asymmetry. Women have historically been oppressed and to do this day remain unequal.

Posted by: CJO | November 3, 2009 8:46 PM

I'll have to let my posting record on the site speak for me.

Whereas anyone else's can simply be dismissed with a string of invective. Aren't you special.

To arrogate the role of spokesperson/champion of "the reasonable folk here," while calling for the banning of someone who merely argued against the assertion that "whore" is a gender-neutral term and committed the apparently unpardonable sin of agreeing with tm, is risible.

"Fuck being nice" all you want, big guy. It doesn't hurt me at all. I was much more offended when you fucked being intelligent, fucked a sense of perspective, and fucked the ability to read in context, for comprehension.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM | November 3, 2009 8:48 PM

Unfortunately, this thread has become completely derailed. Too bad, there were several interesting topics being discussed earlier, but TM et al decided to whine about some other shit instead.

I will now be called insensitive and sexist in 10...9...8...

Posted by: truth machine | November 3, 2009 9:06 PM

Unfortunately, this thread has become completely derailed. Too bad, there were several interesting topics being discussed earlier, but TM et al decided to whine about some other shit instead.

Nothing's stopping you from saying something interesting, asshole. Of course it's the "whining" about sexism rather than the indulging in it that derails threads.

I will now be called insensitive and sexist in 10...9...8...

Quack quack.

Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 3, 2009 9:12 PM

I will now be called insensitive and sexist in 10...9...8...

Quack quack.

DINGDINGDINGDING!!!!!

We have a winner.

Posted by: Newfie | November 3, 2009 9:19 PM

Funniest thing I've seen all week.

one can never assume sometimes, but I did. your response tells me that I have erred. I'll call it "Stan" from now on.

Posted by: truth machine | November 3, 2009 9:24 PM

I lumped you into my intended rant at TM for no other reason than association and bad timing at a point in the thread where I had had enough.

You seem to have forgotten the real reason: CJO noted the obvious sexist associations with words like "whore".

Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 3, 2009 9:31 PM

Tis, for guessing the magic woid, your prize is a lifetime supply of Rice-a-Roni.

Congrats!

Posted by: kopd | November 3, 2009 9:39 PM

Newfie:

Our new substitute for "drama queen" is "drama llama." I like it. It doesn't have that same connotation of self-importance, but it does rhyme.

Still working on a replacement for "attention whore." I find it interesting that I'm being villainized for being more familiar with the Webster dictionary (published in my home country) definition of a word than the Oxford (UK published) definition. And I'm willfully ignorant for not exhaustively researching the etymology of every word in my language. Oh well. So I'm mistaken and in communities outside my own, whore is assumed to be female (in much the same way that a baker is assumed to be male, I guess) and is a sexist insult, not just a values insult.

"What do we call an unchaste or lewd man or a fornicating or adulterous man?"

For the record, where I'm from he'd be called a whore. But where I'm from the word is used to denote a person who has sold out their values, like a prostitute (male or female).

Well, this is why I need to develop one of those thicker skins if I'm going to stick around, I suppose. I'd have rather had a conversation about people's thoughts on legalizing prostitution. Maybe such a thread will come up in the future. I'll keep an eye out for it.

Posted by: truth machine | November 3, 2009 9:42 PM

Misogynist to the core.

Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 3, 2009 9:48 PM

kopd,

While I still (selfishly) prefer "Bill Donohue" as a substitute for "drama queen," "drama llama" has a certain cachet and logic to it.

Spit-flecking expressions of offense are, after all, the modus operandi of the the llama (according to my limited knowledge of llama behavior). Of course spit-flecking expressions of offense are also the modus operandi of Bill Donohue.

Posted by: ERV | November 3, 2009 9:49 PM

Kate, #145-- Other humanists want ethical education for their children, social-service opportunities, life ceremonies, inspirational meetings, and yes even to celebrate the changing seasons and listen to music. None of these things are "woo"; they are natural human needs, and Ethical Societies exist to serve those needs.
Outside 'social service opportunities' and 'listening to music', which OKC Atheists also do without being woo-bats (though we just call it 'volunteering' and 'partying'), yeah, that is all woo.

'Ethical education'?

'Life ceremonies'??

'Natural' for fruitcakes, maybe. LOL!!!

Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes | November 3, 2009 9:52 PM

I have never once spelled the word "disinegnuous" correctly (and why end a streak?), but you guys nail the dismount on this one every time. Well done.

@Newfie: the terms "cunt", "twat" and "whiny fucking bitch" could be construed as being sexist. You just want to be careful about using language like that around feminazis.

Posted by: John Morales | November 3, 2009 10:00 PM

[meta]

Heh.

Another shining example of the Pharyngula "echo chamber" in action.

Posted by: Cruithne | November 3, 2009 10:09 PM

Newfie, I just wanted to say that I find some of your comments on this thread deeply offensive, misogynist and totally out of place in this blog.
I wont repost your comments since they have already be reposted more than once but you ought to know that they haven't gone unnoticed.

I ask you to consider whether or not you would have responded with racial slurs if in disagreement with a person of colour the way you have responded with misogyny when disagreeing with women?

Hate speech is hate speech.

Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 3, 2009 10:18 PM

"blockquote>the the llama How the hell did that happen. Damn text-wrapping!

Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 3, 2009 10:19 PM

Sigh, Fuck.

Posted by: Newfie | November 3, 2009 10:29 PM

I ask you to consider whether or not you would have responded with racial slurs if in disagreement with a person of colour the way you have responded with misogyny when disagreeing with women?

Hate speech is hate speech.

if context and intent is not understood, speech can be whatever you want it to be.

a word has never harmed anyone... the intended use of words has killed millions.

poor communication skills on my part, or a bunch of mind readers

but thanks for your concern.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 3, 2009 10:35 PM

Posted by: CalGeorge | November 3, 2009 6:10 PM

I had no idea who she was until today (probably because she wastes her time serving as fodder on crap t.v. programs) but it's clear she's fighting the good fight. She reminds me a little of Emma Goldman. Unapologetic about her beliefs and defiant in the face of criticism.

Go, Sunsara!

Sorry, CalGeorge, but I take just a little offense to you comparing Sunsara Taylor to Emma Goldman. Emma Goldman was a russian immigrant who became an anarchist after the Haymarket Riot and the sham trail the occurred in it's wake. Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman were among the many radical russians that were rounded up and deport back to Russia as part of the Palmer Raids. While at first they were excited to be in a place where it seemed that a worker's revolution was happening, Emma ended up being one of the first leftist critic of the Soviet Union.

I doubt very seriously that Emma Goldman would have approved of Mao's dictatorship and would have been dismayed by the Cultural Revolution. I doubt that Emma Goldman would have much use for people who find inspiration in the words and deeds of Chairman Mao.

Posted by: Cruithne | November 3, 2009 10:45 PM

unless ideology and conviction now trumps rule of law. Lots of the religious want ideology to trump rule of law too.

Strawman much?

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | November 3, 2009 10:55 PM

What people are saying is that they don't have the right to disinvite someone and expect that person to meekly comply without any type of response to the disinvite.

I agree with you about that. But aren't there other ways to not meekly comply?

They invited her to speak about 'morality without god': she changed the program to a polemic on 'christian fascism'. It'd probably have been a great speech, but it was a curveball they couldn't deal with. So she turned their meeting into a publicity stunt and is demonizing them as McCarthyites. But all they are is a bit cowardly. This is a cheap pedestal for a very selfish self-righteousness.

Some of the people who were there have posted some diverse impressions of the incident at the Friendly Athiest:

http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/11/02/the-ethical-humanist-society-of-chicago-vs-sunsara-taylor/

It's pretty ugly all around.

Posted by: Hadrian | November 3, 2009 11:02 PM

Wow, just... wow. Talk about sound and fury.

Posted by: cruithne | November 3, 2009 11:06 PM

she deserves what exactly?

I never said she deserved anything, though I note in your previous post you suggest she deserves to be arrested.
Funny how you've spent so much effort in this thread demanding your own right to be as offensive as you can but take such a dim view of others trying to have their voices heard.

Posted by: John Morales | November 3, 2009 11:10 PM

Thomas:

I am a sexist man dog pig. If you've got a problem with that, feel free to amend the constitution.

Nah. I'll just consider you morally reprehensible for knowingly being sexist.

Posted by: airbagmoments | November 3, 2009 11:13 PM

Sophomoric tempests and teapots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE

Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | November 3, 2009 11:16 PM

For the record, where I'm from he'd be called a whore. But where I'm from the word is used to denote a person who has sold out their values, like a prostitute (male or female).

Er ... who are you to say what their values should or shouldn't be. Who are you to say that values shouldn't be bought or sold even. Perhaps you meant that they sold out your values. That would make you a pimp.

Posted by: cruithne | November 3, 2009 11:22 PM

Taylor made a lot of choices that show little regard for respecting the free will of others. So what's this about free speech?

Another strawman.

What has respecting the freewill of others (whatever the hell that means) got to do with free speech?
the right to free speech exists in order to grant people the ability to speak when others don't want to hear what they're saying, to suggest it's dependant upon placating others negates the idea of it being free speech in the first place.
As for this ridiculous notion that Taylor is somehow beholden to remain in a particular venue because others have decided that's where she ought to be?
She made a decision to protest what she felt was an injustice, that is her right.

If in the course of that protest she broke the law then I have no doubt she would have been arrested, something which did not happen.

Posted by: Newfie | November 3, 2009 11:37 PM

Joe Lieberman is a political whore. He's whored his vote to the heath insurance lobby.

I see nothing wrong with that statement. I see no woman referred to or implied. Yet some will say I'm being misogynistic.
I don't get it.
The words, "cunt" and "prick" are both used here in the Newfoundland vernacular.
Cunt means a greedy or stingy person.
Prick means a person who does something against you that you consider unfair.
They are used by both sexes here, against either sex.. sometimes in the most funny and loving way, but the words aren't considered gender specific in that usage. Yes we know other meanings for the words, but that's not the words we're using. And we don't care that you hate one meaning for a particular word.. it's our Language... go find German phrases that offend you, that the German have no concern with.

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | November 3, 2009 11:44 PM

What has respecting the freewill of others (whatever the hell that means) got to do with free speech?

It has this to do with it: Free speech includes the right to walk away. And it doesn't negate the right to privacy.

Remember that the ethics of this sort of thing are universal. I like Taylor's agenda, but I think it's a mistake to support her grandstanding as a defense of free speech.

She was invited to speak on a particular subject; she changed the topic to force a confrontation; they didn't want it; they told her they'd set up a separate event and let their members know about it and invite them to attend if they'd like. That's reasonable.

the right to free speech exists in order to grant people the ability to speak when others don't want to hear what they're saying, to suggest it's dependant upon placating others negates the idea of it being free speech in the first place.

It's not dependent on "placating others". She was given an opportunity to exercise her free speech: she chose "cheap publicity" instead.

If in the course of that protest she broke the law then I have no doubt she would have been arrested, something which did not happen.

She was charged with trespassing. It's a very minor charge. This is a very minor story, about a very petty person vs. a very stupid organization.

Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | November 3, 2009 11:53 PM

Now, women are just people to me, neither to be coddled nor condescended to by virtue of their sex.

Why are you pimping your values here?

Posted by: Cruithne | November 4, 2009 12:10 AM

Benjamin.

I'm not making a judgement on whether or not Taylor's actions were petty or a publicity stunt, to me that's irrelevant.
As for the rest of your post, I'm afraid I've heard similar versions of your argument used to explain why a certain professor ought to have stayed away from holy crackers.
I didn't buy it then, and I'm not buying it now.

Posted by: truth machine | November 4, 2009 12:17 AM

about a very petty person

This baseless characterization completely undermines your credibility. As I noted, at the end of the video Ms. Taylor argues for her action on moral grounds. You may find her argument wrong or even absurd, but acting out of principle is not "petty". And those who have personally dealt with her do not find her "petty":

I debated Sunsara in New York City on the topic of atheism and religion. We stand on separate sides, I as a seminary graduate and believer, she as a committed atheist. Sunsara was serious, respectful and thoughtful in our debate. Her voice helped two communities that often do not come together find common ground and further mutual respect. Chris Hedges Pulitzer prize-winning journalist & author of War Is A Force Which Gives Us Meaning Senior fellow at The Nation Institute Anschutz Distinguished Fellow at Princeton University

Sunsara is a well-known speaker on a variety of issues. If you haven't seen her, I urge you to go on YouTube now. Yes, she may take stances you disagree with. But on the topic of morality without god, I would hope the society and Sunsara share viewpoints. That's what she is talking about and no doubt she'll do a great job of it. If you have concerns on her other stances, i feel they are irrelevant in this matter. Hemant Mehta Chair of the Secular Student Alliance Board of Directors

I have had formal and informal debates with Sunsara Taylor, and -- despite our disagreements on politics and philosophy - I have always found her a thoughtful voice of reason and an engaging public presence. She brings a different point of view to the conversation, and we need desperately different points of view to have a vibrant democracy
Massimo Pigliucci
Professor of Ecology and Evolution at State University of NY Stonybrook
Chair of Dept. of Philosophy -Lehman College

As someone who's reported extensively on the Christian right, I've shared the podium with Sunsara on a number of panels and events, and I've also watched her hold her own on late night political talk shows. Sunsara is consistently open and frank about her convictions; she forthrightly and thoughtfully engages in political arguments and brings energy and passion to any discussion. Moreover, at this time of economic crisis, when many Americans are dumbfounded to hear that Wall Street is already in recovery while they suffer joblessness and foreclosure, Sunsara's critique of capitalism strikes me as an especially important perspective to have aired. Esther Kaplan Investigative Editor, The Nation Institute

Project Censored at Sonoma State University has hosted Sunsara Taylor on two occasions and both times her talks were intellectual, stimulating and of significant importance to social justice both in the US and the world. I highly recommend her presentations as positive support for academic freedom and human equality. Peter Phillips Professor Sociology, Sonoma State University President, Media Freedom Foundation

Dear Sir or Madam,

I've heard that, incredibly, you're considering rescinding an invitation to have Sunsara Taylor speak.
I had the opportunity to meet Sunsara Taylor when she appeared as part of our parody church show, "The Best Church of God." The show, which has been repeatedly acclaimed by critics, was graced with her presence, intelligence and good humor last spring. While I don't necessarily agree with every single aspect of Ms. Sunsara's politics, I was very, very impressed with her intelligence, sense of fair play and attractive and positive demeanor. Our "church" pretends to ally itself with the most extreme of conservative views, and she rebutted our nonsensical (yet Biblically "sound" arguments) brilliantly, with a serious recitation of facts but also with tremendous good humor. Our audience enjoyed themselves thoroughly, not only because of our comedy skills, but also because they saw a lively, well-thought-out and entertaining exchange of ideas from every onstage.

If dishonor your entire organization by rescinding Ms. Taylor's invitation to speak, you are not only doing a disservice to your cause and your organization, you are denying the public and your members the opportunity to hear from one of the most intelligent, dynamic and original voices in the country today. Please do not make that mistake! Allow Sunsara Taylor to speak on November 1st.
Regards,
Darren Stephens
"Pastor Dave Shepherd" of The Best Church of God
Chicago, Illinois
www.bestchurchofgod.org

I was very disappointed to read that the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago has announced the cancellation of a presentation by Sunsara Taylor on the topic “Morality Without Gods.” Since I conducted an hour-long interview with Ms. Taylor in April for Atheist Talk Radio in Minnesota, I am familiar with her views on a variety of topics of interest to humanists. I know her to be not only extremely articulate and well-read, but also civil in discussions with people of opposing views. She remarked during my interview with her that she is pleased when someone points out her errors, because if she is wrong about something she wants to know it.

I think that is model of critical thinking that should be honored by humanists. Yet too often atheist and humanist organizations are justifiably criticized as ideological appendages of the Democratic Party. While humanism should provide a common home to a wide variety of godless ethical reasoning, too often it merely parades the platitudes of American liberalism as universal values.
Have you presented other speakers who analyze morality as a product of class division, or describe a revolutionary morality that might emerge from the very practical struggle against all forms exploitation? Surely it is a topic of interest to a community of godless, secular ethics. If the Ethical Humanist Society cancels Sunsara Taylors presentation it will be difficult to understand as anything but censorship of a minority position within the humanist community.
George Francis Kane
Public Relations Officer for the Minnesota Atheists

I have shared a podium with Sunsara Taylor several times and heard her speak many more times, in person, on TV, and online at YouTube. She is a dynamic, articulate, principled, passionate, lively, and important voice for reason, fresh and historically informed revolutionary ideas, and atheism.

I am surprised, based on the letter that you sent her disinviting her to speak at your November 1 event, that her description of her intended talk could have been so thoroughly misunderstood. I have presented at Humanist conferences myself in the past and found the gatherings to be stimulating and generous in spirit.

You write: “[W]e are an inclusive humanist group. A talk that dwells on ‘Christian fascists’ and characterizes the leading moral problems facing the U.S. as depending critically on ‘an influx of immigrants from around the world, [and] the entering of women into the workforce in the last generation’ is not what we were expecting.

“Second, instead we had been hoping that you could help us think about how moral, ethical behavior need not depend on a theistic outlook.”

It is clear not only from what she submitted as a description and also her very well-documented record, readily available as a speaker and writer in numerous fora, that she would in fact be speaking precisely to the questions you requested that she address and doing so in the most inclusive of ways, reaching out to those who approach the question very differently from her.

Sunsara in her description of her upcoming talk said: “We live in a time of moral crises. These crises are NOT, as the Christian fascists like to constantly insist, because of ‘abortionists, the ACLU, homosexuals, and science instructors who teach evolution.’ These crises exist because the stability and way of life of millions of people are being disrupted by the effects of imperialist globalization.”

Ms. Taylor is here contextualizing why we are in the midst of moral crises in this country. It sets the foundation upon which she will address the questions you wanted her to address. You asked that she help you “think about how moral, ethical behavior need not depend on a theistic outlook.” That is exactly what she intends to do.

I would be shocked if you did not rescind this extraordinary attempt to withdraw your invitation of July to have her speak. It would set an exceedingly bad example both for your organization and for the broader society. Now more than ever reasoned dialogue and lively exchanges of ideas are called for.
Sincerely,
Dennis Loo, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology, CalPoly Ponoma
Co-editor of Impeach the President: the Case Against Bush and Cheney
Winner of the Alfred R. Lindesmith Award,
the Nation Magazine’s Most Valuable Crusade Award
and Project Censored AwardNational Steering Committee Member of the World Can’t Wait

I am writing this e-mail on behalf of Ms. Sunsara Taylor, whose scheduled presentation on November 1st. is apparently the target of disruption by the very organization responsible for inviting her in the first place (EHSC). I find this cancellation unconscionable.

I have shared a speaker's table with Sunsara Taylor on three occasions--twice at New York University and once at Pace University (on all three occasions we discussed the very same topic she is to present on at EHSC, "Morality Without Gods", and we both are involved as sometime hosts of the WBAI-radio (NYC) program Equal Time for Freethought. I cannot understand how you could in good faith cancel such a presentation from someone with so distinguished a track record in this regard.

The suggestion in Anil Kashyap's notice of cancellation to Ms. Taylor that "It makes no sense to bring you to speak to an audience who will not be interested or enthusiastic" not only speaks volumes about ignorance of Ms. Taylor's work, but also about the meanings of both 'ethics' and 'humanism'. I urge you to correct your error and allow the presentation to proceed as scheduled.

I find it ironic that I returned home today from a one-day conference at Villanova University, PA, on the subject of "Catholicism and Intelligent Design," where I was introduced to some folks who think that humans walked with dinosaurs, and that human beings are 'devolving instead of evolving'. Am I to assume that this last suggestion is evidenced by the behavior of your organization towards Ms. Taylor?

I found what I expected at the Villanova conference today; I expect better behavior from those one would ordinarily consider either natural allies or at least reasonable persons. This would be amusing if the crisis we are facing today weren't so serious. I can't help but suggest that you reflect on the history of mistakes like this carried out by organizations with otherwise respectable track-records (for example, see the historical example of what the ACLU did to Elizabeth Gurley Flynn). Whatever the motivations for your actions, appearances count for a whole lot. This cancellation has a 'bad odor' about it; now is the time to reverse the error, and allow Ms. Taylor to speak as scheduled.
Sincerely,
Paul Eckstein, MA
Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Religion Bergen Community College, Paramus, NJ

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | November 4, 2009 12:23 AM

I'm not making a judgement on whether or not Taylor's actions were petty or a publicity stunt, to me that's irrelevant. As for the rest of your post, I'm afraid I've heard similar versions of your argument used to explain why a certain professor ought to have stayed away from holy crackers. I didn't buy it then, and I'm not buying it now.

Fair enough! That's the sort of argument I can respect: occasionally it's a surprisingly fine line between the profoundly effective and profoundly egomaniacal. In this case we disagree, but I'm open to the possibility that the gut feeling I get from reading the press about this might be wrong.

But honestly I'd be happier if you were right, because for the most part I think her social perspective is wonderful. I'm sure you'll understand that the second-worst thing for any social movement is a demagogic leader who relies on manipulation to make a point. But the worst thing is cynics who put down idealistic thinkers at the slightest provocation. I hope to step away from the latter charge: I've said my bit, no more criticism here.

But really it's the behaviour of the police that's finally decided me. Of all of it, that's the most repulsive thing: the replacement of violence for reasonable dialogue.

You win. Thanks for the discussion.

Posted by: Cruithne | November 4, 2009 12:28 AM

Whilst not a communist myself, I have lived under communist rule (of sorts). When living in France my suburb was occasionally run by communists elected to local council, they did a decent job compared to a few others.

Posted by: truth machine | November 4, 2009 12:30 AM

She was invited to speak on a particular subject; she changed the topic to force a confrontation

This is an complete fabrication and totally misrepresents the sequence of events; no one or at EHSC, or any other informed person, makes that claim. The topic was always "Morality Without Gods", a subject that Ms. Taylor has spoken on many times.

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | November 4, 2009 12:34 AM

The topic was always "Morality Without Gods", a subject that Ms. Taylor has spoken on many times.

If my topic were "Assholes of the Internet" and, two weeks before the event I sent in a list of topics to be covered and left off 'Truth Machine', would I be "disingenuous"?

Posted by: truth machine | November 4, 2009 12:36 AM

Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip, you're a walking talking heap of intellectual dishonesty who fabricates at will, e.g. "the EHSC set up a separate event at the home of one of their members, so people who were interested in it could hear Taylor's ideas" -- this a complete and utter lie; the EHSC did not set up any such thing, the member volunteered to let Ms. Taylor speak their home in private if the EHSC persisted in not allowing her to do so.

Posted by: Alan | November 4, 2009 12:44 AM

I feel a lot of us need to understand the American attitude to communism. It feels like it's a superstitious dread. I think many people see it as a legitimate political perspective - even if they despise Soviet/Chinese/Cuban totalitarianism. There are several examples of communist administrations within democracies being extremely successful and many of us can separate it from totalitarianism.

But the impression I get is that most Americans are convinced that the aim of all communists is the enslavement of humanity. And are Americans aware of the brutal tactics used by right wing groups to suppress American communism long before Mcarthy?

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | November 4, 2009 12:55 AM

It's egalitarian.

ha! I would venture that it is the closest province to it though.

I've never been there - but I'm going to try to make it there this Spring. I've heard it's a really beautiful place, and I've never met a Newfie who wasn't wonderful.

You are and will always be disingenuous -- you are simply fabricating at will, you lying piece of shit.

But where this fellow's from, I don't ever want to go. It seems like a very sad and lonesome place.

Truth Machine: will you please elucidate on her well-known positions? I've been to her blog and verified them for myself: they're quite spectacular. And I've read the descriptions of her behaviour by people who were there are the EHSC meeting, including the perspectives of people who support Taylor and perspectives of people who USED TO support Taylor very strongly before she pulled this stunt.

If you think their words are inaccurate please let me know why. Frankly, the description that an EHSC member named Evan Kane gives to this fiasco seems the most well-balanced piece of writing I've encountered from any source so far (including your endless monologue of non-referenced "facts"). Have a go at that and get back to me svp:

http://friendlyatheist.com/2009/11/02/the-ethical-humanist-society-of-chicago-vs-sunsara-taylor/

Posted by: Dr. P | November 4, 2009 12:55 AM

@ 250,

I am a sexist man dog pig. If you've got a problem with that, feel free to amend the constitution.

Posted by: Just wondering | November 4, 2009 1:04 AM

and being rude to others, to point where I laid down some actually misogynist cussing to hammer home a point.

And if you felt you were unfairly called a racist, would you call the person confronting you over what they considered racist speech an unemployed nigger that's just angry because all the good looking black women pass him and his porch monkey friends over for rich white guys? After all, white people call each other nigger now, too (albeit usually when black people are out of earshot). The language has evolved.

If yes, at least bravo on the consistency in being a horrible person. If no, why is it acceptable to insult a perceived female as being angry because they are always passed over for the cute girls, or to throw out all sorts of vulgar gendered insults just to make a point?

I generally pass over truth machine's posts anywhere misogyny comes up as a subject. I felt he went overboard with the white knighting sometimes, and that it is not productive to bring it up when possibly innocent gendered language is used. Congratulations on changing my mind.

Posted by: postscript | November 4, 2009 1:10 AM

Letters to EHS on Sunsara’s blog also raise alarms about the broader implications of such censorship.

From Tim Wise author, White Like Me: Reflections on Race from a Privileged Son and Between Barack and a Hard Place: Racism and White Denial in the Age of Obama:

“For people who call themselves ethical and humanist to dis-invite Sunsara Taylor–or frankly, any speaker whom they had previously invited–suggests that they may well be neither. Though I have many disagreements with Sunsara, she is nothing if not thoughtful, fair-minded and, importantly for this matter, ethical. What is most disturbing about this decision is its lack of transparency. Surely the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago must have known of Sunsara’s views before inviting her to speak. As such, their decision to withdraw the invitation would seem to indicate that they backed down after pressure was applied by those unwilling to countenance the introduction of communist ideas into the humanist debate. Such content-based censorship is inappropriate and frightening, and this kind of red-baiting has never served the progressive-left community well.”

From: Mark Crispin Miller Professor of Media, Culture and Communication, New York University
[To EHS]
“While certain of her arguments may well be controversial, that is no reason whatsoever to decide against allowing her to make them publicly, under your auspices: on the contrary. It is because her arguments are challenging that she should be allowed to go ahead and make them, as originally planned–allowing others there to challenge them in turn, if those others should be so inclined

“Please reconsider your decision, which does just not reflect badly on your organization, but, if allowed to stand, will represent yet one more victory for “safe” opinion over full and vigorous debate.”

From Massimo Pigliucci
Professor of Ecology and Evolution at State University of NY Stonybrook
“I have had formal and informal debates with Sunsara Taylor, and — despite our disagreements on politics and philosophy – I have always found her a thoughtful voice of reason and an engaging public presence. She brings a different point of view to the conversation, and we need desperately different points of view to have a vibrant democracy.”

From Paul Eckstein, MA Assistant Professor of Philosophy and Religion, Bergen Community College, Paramus, NJ*

“I expect better behavior from those one would ordinarily consider either natural allies or at least reasonable persons. This would be amusing if the crisis we are facing today weren’t so serious. I can’t help but suggest that you reflect on the history of mistakes like this carried out by organizations with otherwise respectable track-records (for example, see the historical example of what the ACLU did to Elizabeth Gurley Flynn). Whatever the motivations for your actions, appearances count for a whole lot. This cancellation has a ‘bad odor’ about it; now is the time to reverse the error, and allow Ms. Taylor to speak as scheduled.”

Posted by: CalGeorge | November 4, 2009 1:12 AM

"Our speakers should and do represent a broad range of diverse viewpoints. However, what we hope for is that they offer insight into the challenges of our time and at least attempt to address them with rational, evidence-based and well thought-out arguments. Ms. Taylor’s talk would have been an ideological rant."

Good job, Proud Member. Good to know you've saved your little club from being infected by commies. Birchers everywhere will hail your staunch commitment to upholding capitalist ideology and squashing the ranting Reds in our midst.

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | November 4, 2009 1:24 AM

Wow. Integrity, fact-checking, rationality - they're all well out the window here. Everyone: step back and think about what Taylor's presenting and the method she's chosen (and she's certainly played with this process) to present it. If you believe her right to free speech has been repressed... how? That's not a valid argument. Her speech has obviously been amplified, not repressed.

Now what is it that she's saying? Why not talk about that a bit? Pros and Cons?

Posted by: Newfie | November 4, 2009 1:35 AM

and as for my thoughts on the story:
You invite Tom Cruise to come to your private acting class, to talk about acting. He says he wants to talk about Scientology. Not what you wanted, but you try to accommodate him, as some of your acting class might want to meet him and hear what he has to say, so he speaks a day earlier, and is offered a smaller venue for the evening while you have your talk about acting, or something else. But Tom Cruise shows up with camera crew at your private acting class and makes an ass of himself.
Poor Tom, his freedom of speech is being oppressed.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 4, 2009 1:44 AM

Newfie,

Poor Tom, his freedom of speech is being oppressed.

often the devil is in the details in these situations.I'm a great Columbo fan, so I have respect for the little details !

Which makes your post @295 a classic example of an analogy fail.

Tom Cruise |= mostly unknown speaker and blogger

Scientology vs acting |= atheist morality vs atheist morality from a communist viewpoint

Posted by: Rorschach | November 4, 2009 1:52 AM

BMH,

I am not a supporter of the lady, you still fail to see that the argument is independent of her viewpoints, and your strawmen are getting a bit tiring.

You mightn't like TMs debating style, but he has shown you to be making shit up @ 275 and 279, so as I said, probably best to stop digging.

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | November 4, 2009 2:10 AM

BMH,

I am not a supporter of the lady, you still fail to see that the argument is independent of her viewpoints, and your strawmen are getting a bit tiring.

You mightn't like TMs debating style, but he has shown you to be making shit up @ 275 and 279, so as I said, probably best to stop digging.

Saying "strawmen" makes a nice substitution for information? In this case there's very little information and much opinion. I referenced perspectives of people who were at the event, and called them such, and and gave links to them.

You've given no evidence, only arbitrary dismissals. I don't mind being proven wrong in this - I do understand how the "argument is independent of her viewpoints" quite clearly, but not the resolution of that position: what is the moral argument for her situation?

If you could please summarize your position, not insults, but in reason, I'd not at all mind at being convinced.

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | November 4, 2009 2:25 AM

Rorschach:

I'm only a humble musician, but as such part of my role in life leans toward vulgar PR. In this situation I see a group of fairly open-minded people whose mere awkwardness - just awkwardness and a bit of cowardice - has been used as a PR stunt. If you think the cause is great enough to validate this, well enough - some things are.

But I don't think so myself. If you disagree: fine. But don't pretend there's some sort of logical fallacy involved. There isn't. Just claim a superior morality and have done with it. Every step you go past that is immoral and unworthy. Just agree to disagree - you and I have that right.

My resentment of her behaviour may well be my loss. I accept that possibility. I'm not perfect, but I'm not a fool.

Good night.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 4, 2009 2:35 AM

In this situation I see a group of fairly open-minded people whose mere awkwardness - just awkwardness and a bit of cowardice - has been used as a PR stunt. If you think the cause is great enough to validate this, well enough - some things are.

And I dont disagree with the PR stunt or making a scene part, I said as much about 100 posts ago, but we don't know that for sure.Getting your facts from parties involved in the matter is just not a very bright thing to do.
Awkwardness? Well, thats one way of putting it.

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | November 4, 2009 2:43 AM

What I find interesting w/all these accusations of misogynistic language, is that not long ago PZ used the C-word in a thread, & nobody said boo-diddly about it.
& pretty soon we'll not be allowed to say 'asshole', because it might offend someone who enjoys sodomy.

Posted by: DianeKeen | November 4, 2009 2:44 AM

Finally, we have the answer to PZ’s straightforward request to EHS: “explain why you, personally, decided to disinvite Sunsara Taylor. It's what I'd like to hear from your side.”

[#282] Proud Member says “Our speakers should and do represent a broad range of diverse viewpoints. However, what we hope for is that they offer insight into the challenges of our time and at least attempt to address them with rational, evidence-based and well thought-out arguments. Ms. Taylor’s talk would have been an ideological rant.”

So there it is in his own words. This is the first time that someone from the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago who made this decision has publically revealed why. Yes, it is anti-communism that is at the core of the Program committee’s dis-invitation. “Proud Member” wanted to keep others from hearing her presentation because he didn’t like what she was going to say.

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | November 4, 2009 2:56 AM

And I dont disagree with the PR stunt or making a scene part, I said as much about 100 posts ago, but we don't know that for sure.

No, we don't. I didn't notice your 100-posts ago bit, I've only responding to your "BMH strawmen". There are a lot of things that might be true, and I don't claim to know her motivations. I'm only responding according to what the varying accounts suggest to me.

Getting your facts from parties involved in the matter is just not a very bright thing to do.

Dare I say: as opposed to getting your facts from third parties?

But, yes: I'd really like to have more information for Taylor's perspective. And I wish she allowed comments on her blog. It'd be really helpful to know what her supporters had to say about their experience at this thing. Frankly: her having a commentless blog puts me off a bit. Just about as much as the earlier comments on this blog saying that she represents a "communist-dictatorship movement". I think there's a lot of bullshit from all angles, as always.

Awkwardness? Well, thats one way of putting it.

I've always held to the perspective that, when confronted by a possibility where either malignancy or incompetence might explain a circumstance: go with incompetence. It seems pretty effective.

But you can substitute 'ignorance' for 'incompetence' most of the time and it doesn't effect the equation.

Yes, it is anti-communism that is at the core of the Program committee’s dis-invitation. “Proud Member” wanted to keep others from hearing her presentation because he didn’t like what she was going to say.

November 4, 2009 2:44 AM

Yes, you're right. He was intimidated by both the group's membership and by Taylor herself: but that doesn't excuse her behaviour after the fact in any way. If he was afraid of communist demagogues, she didn't do much to present herself as a rational voice that should be listened to.

Of course that's not really her responsibility: it's her missed opportunity.

Posted by: Krystalline Apostate Author Profile Page | November 4, 2009 2:47 AM

Getting your facts from parties involved in the matter is just not a very bright thing to do.

I would think that would be the 1st thing to do. Because there's always 3 sides to every story: the pro-side, the con-side, & what actually happened.

Exactly.

Posted by: CJO | November 4, 2009 2:59 AM

The OED has a bit more to say.

whore, n. 1. a. A woman who prostitutes herself for hire; a prostitute, harlot. b. More generally: An unchaste or lewd woman; a fornicatress or adulteress. to play the whore (of a woman), to commit fornication or adultery. c. A male prostitute; any promiscuous or unprincipled person. (Esp. as a term of abuse.)

Just as before, with the Merriam Webster definition, the attempted 'gotcha' proves the point. What is c.'s power as "a term of abuse" except the connotations of a. and b.?

Posted by: truth machine | November 4, 2009 3:06 AM

I heard Ms. Taylor speak at AAI and she was eloquent, interesting, relevant and provocative. The Humanists missed out.

They missed out because of hypocritical ideologue asses like "Proud Member" who has to make up lies like "she is an incoherent thinker; and that she is a poor speaker". Compare that to someone like Bjorn Watland who can say both that "She only idolizes Maoist China, and thinks the massive starvation was worth it in the end. She's a little nuts" and "She handled criticism of communism, which made up the majority of the discussion afterwards, very well. As a speaker, she is confident, assertive, and concerned about understanding the point of view of the questioner". The rest of his comments on her talk make it clear how very relevant it is to the topic of "Morality Without Gods", regardless of whether one agrees with all of her claims.

Posted by: darvolution proponentsist | November 4, 2009 3:18 AM

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | November 4, 2009 3:33 AM

She didn't change the topic to force a confrontation, you lying piece of shit, the confrontation came about because fools like "this guy" decided to "un-invite" a speaker. Funny how there was no such confrontation between Ms. Taylor and the Minnesota Atheists

Once again:

If I were invited to give a speech about "The Great Assholes of the Internet" and I left out 'Truth Machine' would it qualify as a speech about "The Great Assholes of the Internet?"

I think not.

Egro, if I were to give a speech about "Morality Without God" and it focused on the essentiality of communist dictatorship for a just and ethical existence, would it be a speech about "Morality Without God"?

I think not.

Can you send us a link to this YouTube video, TM? I've not had a chance to see it, but it might shed some light on this topic.

Posted by: truth machine | November 4, 2009 3:36 AM

Egro, if I were to give a speech about "Morality Without God" and it focused on the essentiality of communist dictatorship for a just and ethical existence, would it be a speech about "Morality Without God"?

I think not.

You're a fucking fabricating piece of garbage and a cretin; see #312.

Posted by: Benjamin Mueller-Heaslip | November 4, 2009 3:43 AM

She didn't do anything that needs excusing, you moralistic asshole.

At least you qualify my assholisness with moralism. Your assholishness remains unqualified, and unquantifiable. C'mon! If I can't match your vulgarity and tunnel vision, I can match wits with at least four of you. But, unfortunately, in your solipsist world there's only one.

Good night, Truth Machine. I hope your hangover's gone by noon.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 4, 2009 3:51 AM

Good night, Truth Machine BMH. I hope your hangover headache from being set straight is gone by noon.

Fixed.

Posted by: truth machine | November 4, 2009 3:59 AM

You're totally right! I really did contradict myself there TM - good job paying attention. And really: good night. Maybe next time we might try discussing eachother's ideas and perceptions and leave out the insults?

An intellectually corrupt piece of shit like you doesn't have ideas, it's just a game of apologetics for you to support your biases. Your "contradiction" wasn't just that, it was a clear sign of the utter dishonesty of your enterprise -- by noting that you are lying about what Ms. Taylor's talk entailed, your entire chain of argument is invalidated.

Posted by: strangest brew | November 4, 2009 4:08 AM

#282

"Proud Member of Ethical Humanist Society"

Is the 'proud member' tag a euthanism ?

Seems that when you invite someone to speak...you invite them to speak about what the speaker knows best.
You do your research BEFORE you make the invite.

If you do not approve of a stance or a view of that speaker...or that stance and view is not what interests your members...then don't invite...that seems kindergarten 101.

Then getting a case of the galloping pompous embarrassments on the classical display of dickheadedness does not equate to calling the police for a video taker!
If you are interested in getting folks to listen to your philosophy of ethical humanism...then I have to inform....

'yous ur doin it wrong'

Laying down the terms and subject matter that is only to be expressed in a particular speech...is not ethical or remotely humane...in fact sounds like eastern blok communism from the 1960's...BLACK...KETTLE...POT...

Posted by: truth machine | November 4, 2009 4:36 AM

If you do not approve of a stance or a view of that speaker...or that stance and view is not what interests your members...then don't invite...that seems kindergarten 101.

That would have spared them from looking like incompetent and unethical jerks in public, but it wouldn't changed the fact that they are jerks. As Susan @#304 said, consistent with what has been said by numerous others who have heard her, Ms. Taylor is "eloquent, interesting, relevant and provocative". One of the provocative things she says is that

I would have posed that any morality that seeks to only grapple with how we relate to those in our immediate circumference and aids in averting our eyes to these larger realities is a morality for “good Germans” or for an acquiescent citizenry of a new Rome.

That seems to be just the sort of morality that Proud Member is limited to:

I read the description of the talk which you can find on Ms. Taylor’s blog. What I saw was a recitation of the usual suspects—globalization, American imperialism, Christian fascism (and a few odd bits as well–movement of women into the work force and immigration). Next, I saw Ms. Taylor’s answer to all that ails the world—communist morality. We asked for “atheist morality.” We got “communist ideology,” which was precisely the talk we said we did not want.

Apparently PM's version of "atheist morality" has nothing to say about the moral dimensions of "the usual suspects" and averts its eyes to the larger realities that Ms. Taylor attempts to analyze when she discusses how Christian fascism is a reaction to loss of social stability that was caused in part by an influx of women and immigrants. Apparently PM's eyes are so averted that he has never noticed that Christian fascists blame -- make moral judgments about -- women and immigrants, and thus he finds Ms. Taylor's mention of them "odd".

Even if Ms. Taylor's answer "to all that ails the world" is completely whack, her analysis of what does ail the world might have given the members of his society something to think about, something relevant to an "ethical humanist society".

Posted by: Walton | November 4, 2009 4:45 AM

truth machine,

Without getting involved in the gendered insults debate (in which I don't necessarily disagree with you), I really, really wish you would stop posting until you develop some basic social skills. You're arrogant beyond belief, and gratuitously offensive and aggressive towards anyone who dares disagree with you. You label any divergence from your own views (even when it comes from sensible and reasonable regular posters) as stupidity.

I'm not demanding civility; insults have their place, and there are people out there who are so impervious to reason (many of the more die-hard creationists, for instance) that the only thing one can do is attack them. But you attack everyone, indiscriminately, who dares to express an opinion different from yours, however reasonable that opinion may be.

You have serious anger issues. I suggest you join a gym, or see a counsellor (I can attest from personal experience that both these things are beneficial). Taking out your frustrations by ranting at people on the internet is not the way to go.

Posted by: truth machine | November 4, 2009 4:52 AM

The agreement was perforce unilaterally broken, since:

Ms. Taylor’s talk would have been an ideological rant.

As distinguished, of course, from PM's own ideological tirade. Of course there really is a distinction -- by most accounts of those who have actually engaged her, while often disagreeing with her politics, she is, in the words of Massimo Pigliucci "a thoughtful voice of reason and an engaging public presence".

Ah well, they got publicity out of this, right? ;)

Making them "drama queens" and "attention whores", by the standards applied by some here to Ms. Taylor.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 4, 2009 5:06 AM

-What I find interesting w/all these accusations of misogynistic language, is that not long ago PZ used the C-word in a thread, & nobody said boo-diddly about it.
& pretty soon we'll not be allowed to say 'asshole', because it might offend someone who enjoys sodomy. -

Yeah, the whole sexism thing just escalated into boredom for us popcorn eaters. I like "drama queen", as a gay guy I think its a great phrase. We have been told that we can't use attention whore...but we haven't been told what we should use instead.

Posted by: The Swede | November 4, 2009 5:27 AM

Ms. Taylor’s talk would have been an ideological rant.

I have to admit I wonder what, exactly, PM expects from a speaker on atheistic morality, if not an ideological rant. It appears the major problem PM has is queasiness at the possibility of being pushed out of his comfort zone.

Something good is coming from all this anyway. Ms. Taylor is bound to get a lot of opportunities to speak at more open minded establishments, and the EHS are showing their true colors and the discomfort their chair feels when someone threatens to tug on their carefully adjusted blinders.

Posted by: IR | November 4, 2009 6:05 AM

Thanks, Walton.

Seriously, TM... calm the fuck down. Any validity your points may have once had have been completely eclipsed by the melodrama and the pottymouth.

Newfie, you're not helping either.

Posted by: truth machine | November 4, 2009 6:31 AM

Grown ups don't talk like that.

Counterfactual.

Any validity your points may have once had have been completely eclipsed by the melodrama and the pottymouth.

Ad hominem fallacy. As for "pottymouth", are "peepee" and "poop" also parts of your "grown up" vocabulary? Perhaps you should spend more time with adults and less with young children ...

Posted by: Cruithne | November 4, 2009 6:38 AM

Sorry Proud Member, I don't think your explanation stands up under scrutiny.

that she is an incoherent thinker; and that she is a poor speaker.

I can see from the video posted at the top of this page that both these statements are false.
Inviting Ms Taylor and then getting in a tizzy because she intends to mention communism seems akin to Inviting Neil Armstrong and getting angry if he mentions the moon.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 4, 2009 7:10 AM

@ 346,

OMG, this thread went out of control.

Not really Cath !
And after spending roughly 12 hours on it I think it was one of the most entertaining threads we've had for a while, the peak being Newfie suggesting truth machine was female ! That's great entertainment right there !

Posted by: truth machine | November 4, 2009 7:40 AM

I'm also not terribly fussed about name-calling like "attention whore", because getting one's knickers in a twist about every instance of sexist language can only lead to a sad case of permanent crotch discomfort.

That's not what I did, or do. Let's go back, way back, to #30:

Apparently, this woman has been a total drama queen about the whole affair

Nothing like a communist woman to bring out sexism and various other stupidities. SC, you're needed here.

What's remarkable here is how false the characterization is. And I really don't think that, were it Mr. Taylor, anyone would be writing "Apparently, this man has been a total drama queen about the whole affair".

I really do wish that SC had been available deconstruct this.

Posted by: Walton | November 4, 2009 7:41 AM

truth machine, my remarks were not an ad hominem. As you would know if you bothered to read my post, I was not arguing "You are rude and obnoxious, therefore you are wrong". Indeed, as I said clearly, I don't necessarily think you're wrong about gendered insults (though I'm not getting involved in that debate.) A person can be rude and obnoxious and yet be right.

Rather, I was simply observing that you are consistently rude and obnoxious, as well as arrogant and egotistical. This has no bearing on whether you're right or wrong about any given issue. But I do think you should stop posting, for the good of everyone else on Pharyngula; and if there is ever another round of Survivor: Pharyngula!, I believe you ought to be one of the candidates.

There are many regular commenters here - such as Bill Dauphin, Knockgoats and Jadehawk - with whom I disagree vehemently on political matters, but who I like and respect on a personal level. Similarly, most regulars here don't share Scott Hatfield's religious beliefs, but he is (rightly) a respected member of the Pharyngula community. So I am not attacking you for your substantive opinions. Rather, I am attacking you because you add nothing of value to any discussion, and because you consistently fling invective at anyone who dares disagree with you even on the most minor points, making it impossible to have a reasoned conversation. You are, in short, a troll: the fact that your views correspond with those of most of the regulars does not make you any less a troll.

Posted by: Rorschach | November 4, 2009 7:52 AM

Walton @ 351,

But I do think you should stop posting, for the good of everyone else on Pharyngula; and if there is ever another round of Survivor: Pharyngula!, I believe you ought to be one of the candidates.

First off, I will link to this:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/molly.php ,feel free to peruse the February 2008 entry.

That aside,
get the fuck over yourself man, I have really had it with you and your petty whinings.
That guy has been right in his "rude and obnoxious" postings since I have been here, and if I wanted anyone gone from Pharyngula, it would not be truth machine.
It's like saying the new atheists are rude and obnoxious.Well, live with it.

Posted by: truth machine | November 4, 2009 8:01 AM

Clin... Rorschach, you're starting to make me regret being mean to you the other day! Oh heck ... I apologize. (Savor that, it may be a while before you see another like it. :-)

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 4, 2009 8:07 AM

But I do think you should stop posting, for the good of everyone else on Pharyngula; and if there is ever another round of Survivor: Pharyngula!, I believe you ought to be one of the candidates.

I'm just going to sit back and savor that little bit of comedy, intentional or not.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | November 4, 2009 8:11 AM

Walton, check the commenters link on the masthead. Truth Machine has a Molly. He/she isn't a troll.

Posted by: truth machine | November 4, 2009 8:16 AM

Im not quite sure how you can still be awake seeing we have been at this for 12 hours now and it's even midnight at my place now...:-)

I slept a whole 3 hours this morning -- far more than I have in some past marathons here, having gone over 40 hours of fairly continuous posting in some of those monumental troll-bashing threads. (It's funny that Walton recommends that I go to the gym -- what's his fitness level? I'd like to see him keep up with this 60 year old in a spinning class, which I now do about 4 hours a week, or on a hilly century ride.)

Posted by: Rorschach | November 4, 2009 8:21 AM

Haver you run out of insults, TM? Your last posts seem a bit tame compared to the rest.

Lars,
we wait with bated breaths for something resembling content from you ! Let us know !

Posted by: Lars | November 4, 2009 8:23 AM

And neither do I claim to. Is that the best you can do?

Posted by: kopd | November 4, 2009 8:27 AM

IM:
I never claimed "drama queen" is gender neutral in origin, just that it's usage is not deeply sexist. I think it's mildly sexist. But you didn't care about that. You saw an opportunity to call me disingenuous for being mistaken about the word "whore" and you lept. I made the arrogant assumption that the rest of the English-speaking world is no more misogynistic than my corner of it. That is unforgivable. I had no idea that disagreeing with you about exactly how misogynistic a term is would garner such vitriol. One reading this thread could come to the conclusion that we should stamp out misogyny and replace it with misanthropy. I wanted to discuss why those terms were considered so deeply sexist, instead I just got attacked. I admit, as I did above, that I screwed up and said "neutral" where "not exclusive" would have been more appropriate. Does that make me contemptible? Is being mistaken a banning offense around here, regardless of whether the poster realizes it later?

Richard said:
"We have been told that we can't use attention whore...but we haven't been told what we should use instead."

My friends tell me "Lindsay Lohan" but I don't watch that sort of news, so I don't know how appropriate it is.

Posted by: Lars | November 4, 2009 8:31 AM

So what topic do you want us to follow or STFU, TM? The "Ms. Taylor" topic, the "sexism directed at her" topic, or the "response to gits like you talking about me" topic?

Posted by: truth machine | November 4, 2009 8:45 AM

So what topic do you want us to follow or STFU, TM?

Congratulations on the stupidest post of the thread, Lars -- possibly with the exception of #365. See the first (non-italicized) sentence of #368. Not that it matters because, per #365, you don't claim to have anything interesting to say -- you're pure unadulterated troll, no impurities!

Posted by: Lars | November 4, 2009 8:48 AM

Nah, this is boring. Where did the unbridled insults go? Disappointing. You really had something going there for a while, but now you troll like a girl.

I'm logging off.

Posted by: Cruithne | November 4, 2009 8:53 AM

I made the arrogant assumption that the rest of the English-speaking world is no more misogynistic than my corner of it.

I think that's a fair assumption Kopd but that in itself doesn't mean that it's not pretty misogynistic. The problem is that some forms of prejudice are so ingrained the the very fabric of our language that it's often easy to mistake normalcy and acceptance with acceptability.

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 4, 2009 9:03 AM

-My friends tell me "Lindsay Lohan" but I don't watch that sort of news, so I don't know how appropriate it is.-

But if Lindsay Lohan is still female. Don't we still have a similar problem? Equating a female celeb as being an attention whore.

Funny I just noticed, Bill Donahue fits this term as well. He is such a Lindsay Lohan Drama Llama. Try saying that fast 3 times.

Posted by: Walton | November 4, 2009 9:07 AM

Walton, check the commenters link on the masthead. Truth Machine has a Molly. He/she isn't a troll.

That doesn't follow. For all I know, truth machine might well have actually made reasonable and constructive comments when he was awarded the Molly (which, IIRC, was before I started commenting here). But his current behaviour is unequivocally trollish. He does nothing but fling insults at people. If I behaved like he does, I would long since (rightly) have been banned.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not attacking or denigrating the Molly in general. There are many genuinely insightful and likeable commenters (Bill Dauphin, Jadehawk, David Marjanovic, and the like) who have deservedly received the Molly. But the fact that truth machine holds an OM does not give him a free pass to behave in an obnoxious and juvenile manner, nor does it mean that I should take his comments seriously until he starts acting like an adult.

I actually agree with him, at least to some extent, on the issue of gendered insults. Hence why I refrain from using sexist epithets like "c**t" or "bitch". (I also try to avoid equivalent male-gendered insults, like telling people to "man up" or "grow some balls".) This terminology all promotes sexist stereotypes, and it should IMO be avoided. However, unlike truth machine, I am capable of recognising that some people legitimately disagree with my position on this, and I don't start flinging insults like "cretin" (which, btw, is a rather offensive word in itself, as it promotes stereotypes about mental disability) at anyone who dares question my opinions. Unfortunately, truth machine seems to have an ego larger than the entire state of Alaska, and evidently cannot tolerate any kind of suggestion that he might not be absolutely right about everything.

Posted by: Lars | November 4, 2009 9:10 AM

So now that you suspect you're being read as pure entertainment, you refuse to play along? Ok, I can live with that.

I'll just wait for someone more sincere than I to come along. Hopefully that will provoke some more of the glorious sputtering. :D:D

It's really spectacular, you know. It's rare to find stuff like this without the spelling and grammar being all fucked up. There's even some logic in there. You're a real treasure chest, I hope you know that.
(Not really logged off after all, oh yes I lied.)

Posted by: Rorschach | November 4, 2009 9:16 AM

But his current behaviour is unequivocally trollish

Ehm no it isnt.

That doesn't follow

Yes it does.

But his current behaviour is unequivocally trollish

Ehm no it isnt.

Unfortunately, truth machine seems to have an ego larger than the entire state of Alaska

*giggle*
You do have to show that this actually gets in the way of him being right however.
In short, an ill tempered rant based on nothing Walton.

Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | November 4, 2009 9:24 AM

As an "anti-sexist" let me assure you that I have no desire to amend the constitution to force you not to be a shithead.

Why are you pimping your culture here? I thought as critical thinkers you were supposed to criticize my beliefs?

Oh, I get it, you think everything should be 'neutral', and that there should be 'no values'. I'm so sorry to be the one to burst your bubble but the real world doesn't work that way.

Good luck living in your little intellectual bubble. You should try the real world once, you might actually get laid. Somebody might actually challenge your beliefs, 'God forbid'.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 4, 2009 9:32 AM

Good luck living in your little intellectual bubble. You should try the real world once, you might actually get laid.

I love the faux internet tough guy act.

It's really amusing.

Posted by: kopd | November 4, 2009 9:34 AM

Richard:

But if Lindsay Lohan is still female. Don't we still have a similar problem? Equating a female celeb as being an attention whore.
It's possible, but I took it to mean that she is a pathological attention seeker.

Funny I just noticed, Bill Donahue fits this term as well. He is such a Lindsay Lohan Drama Llama. Try saying that fast 3 times.
I don't think I can say that 3 time fast. :-)
I have a guess that many pathological attention seekers are also highly dramatic. I think Bill Donahue is a good shorthand for any such behavior. On this board, that's what I'll use.

Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | November 4, 2009 9:43 AM

I love the faux internet tough guy act.

Yes, and if Ms. Taylor and the Ethical Humanist Society would have thoroughly vetted their idiotic beliefs and cultures on the internet beforehand, the cops wouldn't have had to display their idiotic beliefs and culture in real life, which in fact is your very own idiotic belief and culture institutionalized.

Does police brutality make you proud, asshole? God, I love the internet. It has prevented more violence and wars than you can imagine. Except for those two pesky little wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but what the hell, you assholes have money, hardware and lives to burn.

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | November 4, 2009 9:48 AM

Good for them.

A Communist is an apologist for mass murder. Not a good example of atheist morality, thank you.

No Communist is a comrade of mine. Accepting Communists in an organization is like accepting the Mafia as a business partner.

McCarthyism? What McCarthy did was go after liberals and call them Communist.

Why should liberals allow themselves to be used as ideological human shields for mass murder?

Posted by: Carla | November 4, 2009 9:59 AM

Back to the facts of what actually happened:

The EHSC did NOT set up a separate space for Sunsara to speak on Sunday morning. A disaffected member of the EHSC did. From what I heard, that member was truly disgusted and plans to (or has) quite the EHSC. Anyone that suggests that the EHSC graciously set up a separate venue for Sunsara is either misinformed or dishonest.

Then, as for what actually happened on Sunday morning. Sunsara showed up, as she clearly stated that she would, to give the EHSC the chance, up to the last minute, to do the right thing. Then, as she had stated that she would, she left and gave a very well-received talk in the private home of the (former) member of the EHSC.

There was NO REASON for the police to have been called in advance. Sunsara did not approach the microphone, she did not disrupt services, she was NEVER ASKED TO LEAVE OR TO STOP SPEAKING. She made a brief announcement (about a minute) calling on the members of the EHSC to get the minutes of their Board's last meeting and the email's that argued for disinviting her -- so that they could see for themselves that this was NEVER about "process" or "acrimony" (which is how the Board was spinning things) and always about over anti-communism (which is very blatant in the meetings and emails, which the members have a right to request). That is ALL SHE DID.

Further, the camera man was NOT violent in any way. He was simply filming. Silently. He was piled on by five police, cuffed and THEN maced.

Read that again: he was cuffed and THEN maced.

Finally, if you actually take a look at how much Sunsara's words have been intentionally distorted by some members of the EHSC (which she documents in her Open Letters to the EHSC -- which, by the way, they NEVER addressed the substance of), and if you consider that despite Sunsara's clear statement that if the EHSC did not reverse their decision to dis-invite her, that she would leave and give her talk elsewhere and YET THE EHSC STILL called the police before she even arrived and moved their Sunday school and had whipped themselves into a self-created frenzy... Then it makes PERFECT SENSE that Sunsara would want what she actually did (and what she didn't) say and do at the EHSC that morning to be documented. SO NO ONE COULD DISTORT IT.

But, in what is actually quite revealing a move, the President of the EHSC never asked Sunsara to leave or to stop speaking, nor did he ask the camera-man to leave. He simply told the police to go after him and then they did.

Even judging from the EHSC President's actions, what Sunsara was doing was not a big problem. BUT, having a clear record of what she was doing, that proved that what she was saying was well-reasoned and exposed a LOT of dishonesty and political censorship on the part of the EHSC Board, WOULD BE A PROBLEM for the image of the EHSC. So, he singled out the camera man.

If he didn't have anything to hide or distort, if Sunsara had actually been doing something that was out of keeping with reasonable and ethical behavior in the face of such a shameful and dishonest and politically driven dis-invitation, then he would have been eager to get Sunsara out of there and keep the camera-man documenting every second of it -- not the other way around.

Posted by: Abdul Alhazred | November 4, 2009 10:10 AM

Saying "you're another" means you admit a Communist is an apologist for mass murder.

Yes I know what Communism is. I am not ignorant, you are a liar.

"United front" right pal?

Dismissed!

Posted by: Walton | November 4, 2009 10:13 AM

Rorschach,

You do have to show that this actually gets in the way of him being right however.

No, I don't. Read my post again. As I specifically said, I think he is right on this issue. I just think he should stop flinging invective at everyone.

truth machine is sometimes right. However, he is also rude, obnoxious and arrogant. There is no contradiction between these statements. And the fact that he is right does not mean that I can't call him out for being rude and obnoxious.

You are confusing the proposition that "civility has nothing to do with correctness" (which is true) with the quite different proposition that "civility doesn't matter" (which is not true). I can acknowledge that someone is right, while reserving the right to criticise his or her behaviour and interactions with others. The two issues are separate.

Posted by: la tricoteuse | November 4, 2009 10:23 AM

Truth Machine:

What's remarkable here is how false the characterization is. And I really don't think that, were it Mr. Taylor, anyone would be writing "Apparently, this man has been a total drama queen about the whole affair".

See, that's the problem with your entire rage-fest right there. I can't speak for anyone else, but I absolutely 100% definitely would and do call men drama queens just as much as women. That said, you'd still have accused people of being sexist for that, anyway.

As for "cunt" and "twat," should I accuse you (and the other people espousing your rabid EVERYONE IS SEXIST viewpoint) of Americo-centrism for apparently discounting the fact that in the UK and Ireland(and probably also AU and NZ, as their speech habits are much more like British English than American English) "cunt" and "twat" are at LEAST equally used to refer to males and females, and probably more often towards men? They're not even used to denigrate what appears to be "stereotypically female" behavior in men, which might have been evidence of sexism (as opposed to saying to a man "you're such a girl" when he exhibits stereotypically female attributes like being "sensitive" or "emotional") They're pretty much interchangeable with "dick," "cock" or "idiot" in meaning and usage.

But hey, you're going to call me sexist for disagreeing with you anyway. :D

P.S. I think it's remarkably sexist (and patronizing, to boot) of you, as a man, to be so goddamn rabid and militant on the behalf of we poor, deluded little women who don't even know we're being linguistically oppressed.

Posted by: Lars | November 4, 2009 10:28 AM

Don't expose the White Horse. It'll Rear and kick you in the sach, even when Shiny Armor is sleeping.

Or, come to think of it, DO expose it. :D Let's see some action here!!!

Posted by: Richard Eis | November 4, 2009 10:47 AM

-A Communist is an apologist for mass murder. etc...blah blah-

Abdul hysterically tries to warn us that communism is ebil and will destroy us all, but foolishly we don't listen...oh the huge manatee.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 4, 2009 11:06 AM

What I find interesting w/all these accusations of misogynistic language, is that not long ago PZ used the C-word in a thread, & nobody said boo-diddly about it. -Krystalline Apostate

Posted by: The Swede | November 4, 2009 11:12 AM

I'm most certainly not defending communism; I am merely pointing out and laughing at (as the alternative would by crying) the absurd knee-jerk reactions any mention of communism receives. I live in a socialist country, and I know well the problems associated with planned economy - as well as the considerable personal and societal advantages of a strong safety net.

The latest one was the most amusing so far. Not only was it knee-jerk and butt-ignorant, it was also followed up by something which didn't even relate to my response.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 4, 2009 11:30 AM

Of course you don't. The subject under discussion here is institutionalized violence, by proxy, on behalf of 'ethical humanists' and I presume 'atheists'. Since you aren't loudly complaining about this on the internet (like PZ is, for instance), rather you are weakly complaining about my sexism or whatever else you can think up to distract critical thinkers from discussing the issues (on the internet, I notice), then I can only presume you are indifferent to the problems.

Presumptions seem to be your strong point.

Nope, my comment was purely directed at your childish use of the taunt of "you might actually get laid". And the fact that you are oh so concerned with how everyone else is approaching the subject yet you use such a childish belittling comment to support your morally superior stance.

How did that add to the conversation you think you are having? How does that support your point about institutionalized violence? How is it not contributing to the institutionalization of macho attitudes?

I have merely brought to your attention the magnitude of the institutionalized violence problem, which indeed is much larger than police brutality at a ethical humanist society meeting. Even when confronted with this astonishing and embarrassing truth, you still wimp out.

I wimped out how? By pointing out some hypocritical actions on your end?

And again, how did you using the "you might actually get laid" taunt add to what you claim you are trying to accomplish?

Seems that works in direct opposition to your goal, making you somewhat of a hypocrite despite your lofty proclamations.

Not only are you a wimp, you're an indifferent prick.

You figured that out by my pointing out the irony of your little jab? That's fantastic.

AKA : American - with an idiotic culture and belief system which you have institutionalized to the point of widespread global, regional, local and media glorification of violence, and actual real life violence. I'm so happy to be able to point that nasty little truth out to you on the internet.

Oh yes, thank you so much for schooling me in the ways of the world. I'm very aware of the American position in the world and it's hilarious that you think you hold some higher position of thought on the subject just because you aren't from here. Get over yourself. Seriously.

So get out there in the real world and ... say nothing.

Glad you've kept your radar on my life and what I do. Your ego must be hard to carry around every day being that big.

Because that's pretty much what you do here.

Sometimes sure. I have a life and occasionally this is a distraction for entertainment.

Heckava job, chimp, just a heckava job.

Back at ya oh all knowledgeable one.

Again, get over yourself.

Are blind assumptions your default?

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 4, 2009 11:58 AM

Walton,

But he is so consistently offensive, aggressive, condescending and unpleasant, in every single discussion, that I find it very hard to converse with him - and, as you've acknowledged, I'm far from the only person to feel this way.

Then don't have a conversation with him.

He seems to believe sincerely that everyone who disagrees with him must ipso facto be either stupid or dishonest.

Yes, but there is a reason why many of the people he's called stupid enjoy his comments.

Rather, we're having a civil and reasonable discussion about a legitimate point of disagreement. truth machine doesn't seem to be capable of doing that.

Civil conversation is rare with him, but reasonable isn't.

But my criticism of his behaviour stands.

You are not the first to complain about it and I'm not the first to defend him. He is a very divisive commenter, probably the only Molly winner PZ has threaten to throw into the dungeon. I doubt this conversation will change him one way or the other. However, if you ignore the insults and focus on the content you'll see why he is popular with the many of the regulars here. If you can't do that, then simply ignore him.

Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 4, 2009 12:19 PM

Krystalline@308:

pretty soon we'll not be allowed to say 'asshole', because it might offend someone who enjoys sodomy.

Well, I won't speak to that, but as a practicing proctologist, I find your flippant use of the term "asshole" deeply offensive.

Posted by: fester60613 | November 4, 2009 12:34 PM

Yikes! And I was thinking about joining these asshats!

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | November 4, 2009 12:55 PM

The dishonest backpedaling from the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago has been pretty weak. If they're not going to actually be ethical, then they at least should better PR people to peddle their bullshit.

Next, I saw Ms. Taylor’s answer to all that ails the world—communist morality. We asked for “atheist morality.”

A person's politics follows from their morality, and communist morality is one form of atheist morality. It is apparently not a form of morality that you are willing to give a platform to, and that is your legal right, but then you shouldn't have invited her in the first place. It is unethical to ask someone to prepare for an event and then cancel. You wasted Ms Taylor's time. That was rude, and you deserve PZ's scolding.

But if you had not escalated rudeness to incident and completely debased yourselves by employing state violence against her videographer, we might not be talking about your rudeness today.

If you want to hear someone talk about why morality can exist at all, then you invite someone like Richard Carrier, a philosopher who has made extensive study of those first principles, and another regular speaker who makes the rounds at meetings like yours.

Marx's dialectical materialism is a historical study of how we got to this moment in history, and an ethical study of where we should go from here, beginning with the premise that there is no God who intervenes in human affairs. Communists seek to answer the same big question that other atheists ask. How shall we act, since we only have each other?

Had you invited Mr Carrier instead, to speak on the subjects in his Sense and goodness without God, you might have been treated to the topics of how we can trust our senses, determinism versus fatalism, or why we should reciprocate. Great, if that's what you want to hear. But you'll have to inform him as well that atheist morality requires not discussing politics in polite company. He made the unseemly error of invoking dead philosophers -- "As Aristotle said, man is a political animal" -- and devoting thirty pages of his book to the impolitic.

Politics is morality in action, and action must be discussed if we are serious about our ethics. Ms Taylor is not the only one who thinks so.

Posted by: flightpapers.org | November 4, 2009 1:06 PM

The RCP has been a bit of an issue for my campus CFI group. But that's been a matter of them showing up to our events with their own literature to hand out, just outside the venue door. Totally unacceptable.

Wait, why? Our campus is covered in people handing out literature of one sort or another.

I note on one of the links that TM provided that the camaraman was maced and jumped on by 5 police on the insistence of the president of EHS.

Presumably, they felt that a passionate lecture about state violence was inadequate and a small but instructive demonstration was in order.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | November 4, 2009 1:14 PM

Presumably, they felt that a passionate lecture about state violence was inadequate and a small but instructive demonstration was in order.

Presumably this is why these atheists objected to any implication of fascism being a Christian phenomenon.

Posted by: Sven DIMilo | November 4, 2009 1:20 PM

The Marxist critique of the bourgeois state overlaps significantly with the views of anarchists left and right.

haven't seen SC around recently, but if she were here she'd say "Anarchism is, and always has been, a movement of the left!"

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | November 4, 2009 1:28 PM

haven't seen SC around recently, but if she were here she'd say "Anarchism is, and always has been, a movement of the left!"

Some links will have to do for now.

Posted by: John | November 4, 2009 1:46 PM

Strange Gods wrote

You should probably present evidence that she's advocating Stalinism before you leap to the rest of your conclusions.

No, not at all. Her contention was that communist morality "means" working towards a world where women are not oppressed. This is demonstrably not true, as there also exist communist philosophies which mean the opposite (including, but not limited to, your example of stalinism).

If she said that she wished to work towards this aim, as well as towards communism, then she would have made a fair point, but to state that communism implies the goal of removing female oppression is to overstep the bounds of truth.

Your contention could only be true if you would not describe the height of the USSR as being communist. If you accept that that's a fair label, then it follows that communism does not in and of itself mean working towards ending oppression of women.

Posted by: Thomas Lee Elifritz | November 4, 2009 1:55 PM

How did that add to the conversation you think you are having? How does that support your point about institutionalized violence?

I'm not making any point, I'm just pointing it out to you because you utterly fail to see it, and refuse to discuss it.

How is it not contributing to the institutionalization of macho attitudes?

Because I'm pointing that out to you on an internet forum that happens to be discussing it as an issue? Perhaps? Maybe?

Thank you so much for your non-contribution and strenuous efforts to misdirect the discussion. That's so ... Fox News.

Posted by: John | November 4, 2009 1:58 PM

Kraid said,

and all the while he's intentionally using language to kick people in the teeth left and right.

This is something that does come across as rather strange.

I am not sure by which rationale it can be seen as unacceptable to mock someone because they are female, but to lay into them with glee because they have a low IQ, or because they struggle to form their arguments as well as others would demand.

Posted by: kopd | November 4, 2009 2:03 PM

I didn't see any hesitation to use insults that are demeaning to people with learning disabilities or children born of unwed parents.

Posted by: illnoise | November 4, 2009 2:08 PM

…well, if nothing else, now I *know* i want nothing to do with "organized/social" atheism.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hockey_bobs#06659 | November 4, 2009 2:13 PM

It's pedantic threads like this that make the Firefox/Greasemonkey/killfile combo a necessity.

Buh bye, "Truth" Machine!

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | November 4, 2009 2:27 PM

No, not at all. Her contention was that communist morality "means" working towards a world where women are not oppressed.

And it can mean that. Just like liberalism can lead one to work toward a world where women are not oppressed, or liberalism can lead one to excuse oneself for being a raging misogynist like Newfie.

There is more than one way to be a communist, and it is correct to say that "communist morality means working toward a world where women are not oppressed." It can also mean mistakenly assuming that class interests are the only thing preventing gender equality.

I see no evidence that Taylor is claiming no communist has never worked against women's interests. I'm beginning to see evidence that you are naively misunderstanding her words.

Posted by: kopd | November 4, 2009 2:40 PM

Who said anything about unwed parents?

Anybody using "git" as an insult.

"worthless person, 1946, British slang, a southern variant of Scottish get "illegitimate child, brat," related to beget.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | November 4, 2009 2:48 PM

I am not sure by which rationale it can be seen as unacceptable to mock someone because they are female, but to lay into them with glee because they have a low IQ, or because they struggle to form their arguments as well as others would demand.

Assuming for the sake of argument that truth machine is wrong to call people stupid, nothing follows from this. It has no implication for the validity of calling sexist people sexists, and it does not make the use of sexist insults any less wrong. Just because some other kid's parents let him stay up past nine o'clock, doesn't mean it's okay for Newfie to call women bitches and cunts.

Kraid, John, and kopd, this sort of lazy fallacy is what forces truth machine to call you stupid. Why don't you lighten his workload?

Posted by: Cliff Hendroval | November 4, 2009 3:02 PM

So you're saying that gay men may not use the term "queen" to refer to other gay men?

Posted by: Sven DIMIlo | November 4, 2009 3:05 PM

a feminine term like "queen" came to be an insult against gay men?

Never heard that one used as an insult.

Posted by: kopd | November 4, 2009 3:12 PM

SGBM:

You're putting words in my mouth, a fallacy of its own. I never said using sexist insults isn't wrong. The hypocrisy in IM's position does not change the fact that sexism is wrong. What I was questioning (and failed miserably) was the idea that the terms in question are deeply sexist in origin, connotation, as well in application. It turns out I may have been mistaken (which is apparently a synonym for disingenuous) on some points, but I never implied that sexism is okay or that anything about IM's attitude invalidated his arguments. It just made them less interesting to read.

Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 4, 2009 3:17 PM

Where's SC?
Anarchism, sexist language.....those are like her bat signals!

Posted by: John | November 4, 2009 3:21 PM

Strange Gods wrote

Assuming for the sake of argument that truth machine is wrong to call people stupid, nothing follows from this...

Something does follow from this, and it is his hypocrisy, which is all that was being pointed out. Nothing more. Certainly no suggestion that the sexist epiphets of others were justified, so your attempt to claim that this was what I was saying is simply wrong.

That you can weave a fantasy position for me, that I do not hold, and call me stupid based on it is really an epic fail.

Even if you don't like people pointing out TM's hypocrisy, calling those who note it stupid is a strange response.

You've fallen into the trap of thinking that just because I criticise him on one point, I disagree with others that he made. That's a schoolboy error, I'm afraid, and one that makes you look a bit foolish.

Posted by: Kraid | November 4, 2009 3:33 PM

Mandolin wrote:

Probably because there's a difference between using language that trades on inherent power differentials to grind an oppressed minority group into the ground, and just calling someone a dipshit. Dipshit.

Four posts later, and my prediction has already come true. Santa must have gotten my letter!

The irony I'm pointing out is that some people, apparently including you, are trying to champion the cause of stopping nasty language that hurts people, all while deliberately using nasty language to hurt people. That was all. Power differentials, more-martyred-than-thou contests, group vs. personal insults, and hurt feelings vs. reinforcement of social constructs didn't enter that particular equation.

I think we'd probably agree that calling someone a dipshit doesn't serve the same purpose as calling someone a name that reinforces an unwanted social construct, so they aren't entirely equivalent. But at the risk of repeating myself, my point was much more general and tongue-in-cheek than that.

p.s. you're a boner biting bastard, uncle fucker.
Amidoinitrite?

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | November 4, 2009 3:43 PM

Something does follow from this, and it is his hypocrisy, which is all that was being pointed out.

No, that's not hypocrisy. If truth machine were calling people stupid while saying it was wrong to call people stupid then that would be hypocrisy.

Certainly no suggestion that the sexist epiphets of others were justified, so your attempt to claim that this was what I was saying is simply wrong.

You haven't spoken up against anyone who was using sexist insults. You have spoken up against truth machine for opposing them. It's apparent which bothers you more.

The idiot Kraid tried to excuse "inadvertently" sexist insults, and you echoed him without exception.

Posted by: Evan Kane | November 4, 2009 3:48 PM

I am a member of the Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago and one of the members who initially supported Sunsara Taylor. It is now clear to me that from the moment she was dis-invited Sunsara saw an opportunity for a confrontation she could blog about.

The program committees decision to change speakers for the November 1st platform was, at worst, ill informed and rude but hardly unethical. We are a society, not a public speakers corner and the decision to change speakers, at any time, is well within our rights both legally and ethically.

Did you happen catch where Sunsara made her statement in the video? It’s at the EHSC. The society sponsored a workshop with Sunsara on Saturday; and yes, another member did host an alternate Sunday lecture at her own home. And what unreasonable demand did the EHSC ask in return? That Sunsara and her group not disrupt the Sunday program.

Even after an apology letter was sent to Sunsara, the Saturday workshop confirmed and held, and the alternate lecture planned, there were members in the society that were afraid that Sunsara and her group would disrupt the Sunday program. That’s why the Sunday school children were moved off site for the day and the Skokie police department was asked to have an officer at the society.

Fools like me thought this was unnecessary and defended Sunsara up until Saturday evening. Why? Because just like she did at minute 9:27 of the video, Sunsara said she was only going to come to the society on Sunday prepared to give her talk and if she wasn’t given the podium she would leave to give her talk at the private home. But that’s not what she did. Instead, as I suspect was always her intention, she caused a disruption until it became an altercation, and I say better with the police than one of our members.

The man who was arrested resisted the police officer when he was asked to leave private property. He was not kicked, beaten, clubbed or tazered; he was subdued with mace, handcuffed and taken into custody. The police officer that the man resisted was however bloodied in the altercation. Calling this an act of police brutality is not only unfair to the Skokie police department but is offensive to people who have actually suffered police brutality.

Even though the path to this unfortunate event was long and complicated in the end had Sunsara decided to not disrupt our event inside our building or even if she had just left when she was asked, there would have been no mace, no arrests and no blood.

Sunsara Taylor should take a hard, introspective look at her own actions before continuing to lecture others on morality.

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | November 4, 2009 3:55 PM

The error being made here is the same error made by fundamentalist Christians who don't like being called intolerant. They insist that liberals have to tolerate everything, and so by refusing to tolerate intolerance, liberals are hypocrites.

It's stupid, but it's a common defense when stupid people feel cornered.

Posted by: Kraid | November 4, 2009 4:04 PM

strange gods before me wrote:

Assuming for the sake of argument that truth machine is wrong to call people stupid, nothing follows from this.

Eh, no, a couple of somethings follow from it. The insults sprinkled so generously through truth machine's posts don't invalidate his other points (or anyone else's, for that matter)... that much we can agree on. However, I'm of the (possibly minority) opinion that hurling around verbal feces like an angry monkey is not only distasteful, but it betrays an underlying unwillingness to actually engage the other person in a meaningful discussion. In cases where there is a possibility of mutual understanding, I find that it's more productive to lay off calling people "dipshit" or "stupid" simply because they considered something differently.

Posted by: windy | November 4, 2009 4:10 PM

Walton:

Without getting involved in the gendered insults debate (in which I don't necessarily disagree with you), I really, really wish you would stop posting until you develop some basic social skills.

That never stopped you, now, did it? ;)

Posted by: strange gods before me, OM | November 4, 2009 4:23 PM

However, I'm of the (possibly minority) opinion that hurling around verbal feces like an angry monkey is not only distasteful,

That is quite probably a minority opinion at Pharyngula, yes. You may feel more welcome elsewhere.

but it betrays an underlying unwillingness to actually engage the other person in a meaningful discussion.

I see no evidence of this. Truth machine makes plenty of substantive comments in addition to saying bad words. I do understand that you may find this distracting, but I don't think TM is obligated to tone it down for the easily distracted.

In cases where there is a possibility of mutual understanding, I find that it's more productive to lay off calling people "dipshit" or "stupid" simply because they considered something differently.

More flies with honey, and so on. I can't answer for truth machine's purposes, though, so I won't comment on that.

Posted by: kopd | November 4, 2009 4:31 PM

Antiochus Epiphanes:

Amen!

Posted by: kopd | November 4, 2009 4:37 PM

In cases where there is a possibility of mutual understanding

Which there was in my case. I knew it was an issue where I might be wrong, so I brought the issue up with my wife, who is practically incapable of hurling insults (the worst I've ever heard from her is "he's an odd duck"). I knew a conversation with her had a chance at being productive. We had a nice lengthy conversation that started of with the perception of the terms being used, how they affect people, and moved on to our thoughts on prostitution and how it affects people and how it should be treated. We respectfully disagreed on a thing or two, but laid out our reasons why. I came out of that conversation with my mind having been changed.

That is quite probably a minority opinion at Pharyngula, yes. You may feel more welcome elsewhere.

Me, too. I was raised with an emphasis on respect. Respect has no value here, therefore I'm having decide whether to try to adapt or move on. Don't get me wrong, I love a lot of the comments here. I have learned a lot and had my positions on a few things challenged, and perhaps been made a better person for it. I'm just not sure I'm ready to throw all my mother's lessons out the window in order to fit in here. For now I'll stick to reading more and posting less.

But first, let me say "Thank you" for actually engaging me in a meaningful dialog. For that you have my respect. Thank you.

Posted by: Desert Son | November 4, 2009 4:40 PM

In cases where there is a possibility of mutual understanding, I find that it's more productive to lay off calling people "dipshit" or "stupid" simply because they considered something differently.

You have the power. You are an agent. You can lay off calling people "dipshit" or "stupid" and continue to make your case, present your arguments, offer explanations, and all the rest of it.

That does not mean, however, that those with whom you engage need respond in kind.

There are possible options in that event:

1) Keep speaking how you choose to speak, and look for the content in the responses, and worry less about the invective.

2) Adopt the invective, and make sure your responses have content, and also invective.

3) Adopt the invective and rely on the invective to carry your arguments, rather than the content. (This option will get you creamed at Pharyngula.)

There may be other options; I can't think of additional ones just now.

However much you may dislike Truth Machine's mode of discourse (and I say that as someone who has received some Truth Machine chastisement in the past, and I got off easy), Truth Machine's content, logic, and argumentation has been, in my experience, diamond-hard and pinpoint-accurate.

Personally, I try to go with option 1 . . . except when I get into cursing, and it happens, and sometimes I'm trying to use it to be funny, and sometimes I'm pissed off (I've got emotions. I like my emotions, and I don't think it's always good to divorce oneself from emotions, but it's important to remember that in discussion, emotion can get in the way of content).

I actually find Pharyngula to be welcoming even if I don't often use terms like "dipshit" and "shit-for-brains" and so forth. This place tends to be heavy on content.

And tentacles. But for sure on content. (It's one reason I've been working on limiting my sometimes knee-jerk reaction for spelling and grammar pedantry to my posts, and worry less about spelling/grammar in posts of others.)

You have power. You have agency.

As a final though, I am doing a fucking lousy job of staying focused on statistics studying today, he said decorously.

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: Desert Son | November 4, 2009 4:51 PM

kopd,

I was raised with an emphasis on respect. Respect has no value here,

I, too, was raised with an emphasis on respect. It took me a long time - decades, in fact - to realize that politeness does not necessarily mean respect.

Sometimes politeness and "civil" language definitely do mean respect. I've come to realize that, at Pharyngula, all kinds of different posters may respect me, even if they call me names, or use profanity (poster stogoe literally called "bullshit" - several times - on a post I made a while back, and yet I think it was said with all the best intentions, and it resulted in me checking facts on what I'd said, doing some research, and stogoe was right: my post was bullshit).

I respectfully disagree with your assessment that respect has no value here at Pharyngula. Sometimes, respect means not treating someone like they're a delicate porcelain cup.

I applaud you for thinking hard on this; I really do. I think that's a good thing to do, and to reevaluate periodically, and to keep asking questions. That's at the heart of science, and I also think that's at the heart of good citizenship.

Al Swearengen on HBO's Deadwood said all this better than I can: "Welcome to fuckin' Deadwood! Can be combative!"

Ok, now I'm really, really, really going to get back to confirmatory factor analysis. Really. I mean it. Watch. Here I go. This is me going . . . .

No kings,

Robert

Posted by: kopd | November 4, 2009 5:00 PM

Robert,

You gave me a lot to think about there. Excellent points. I have a lot to learn, but this thread has been a really good start.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | November 4, 2009 5:53 PM

TM, I didn't say that you were getting your knickers in a twist, I said that I wasn't. An expression of my own opinion, and weariness with all that crap. I rarely fight sexist language battles, though I'll often put in a single post to support whoever is taking it on.

I also said that a wildly misogynist rant in response to someone pointing it out is the really Bad Thing. You were the "someone pointing it out" there. That's all I said about you. I think you know who the wildly misogynist ranter was.

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 4, 2009 6:11 PM

"Ok, fuck being nice...

Truth Machine, and CJO are both fangirl, feminazi cunts. Stupid, angry dimwitted, twats. Looking to take offence wherever the fuck they can find it. They add nothing to the discourse, and just seem to be standing up for some fucking whiny bitch, who had her parade rained on. Boo fucking hoo."

Thank you; my thoughts exactly (both with regard to the "fangirls" and the incident they are up in arms about). Political correctness is a dogma that really makes me want to vomit, just like every poorly reasoned, emotionally-driven post "Truth" Machine (in particular) has made. Arguing with these people looks a lot like arguing with theists. I wonder what they have in common...

Posted by: CJO | November 4, 2009 6:31 PM

Thank you; my thoughts exactly (both with regard to the "fangirls" and the incident they are up in arms about). Political correctness is a dogma that really makes me want to vomit, just like every poorly reasoned, emotionally-driven post "Truth" Machine (in particular) has made. Arguing with these people looks a lot like arguing with theists. I wonder what they have in common...

Congratulations, fucker. You just picked up a piece of rancid, dripping slime from the bottom of a rotten barrel, which even its author has repudiated, and gave it a big ol' wet kiss, right in front of the entire world. I'm tired of it, and I don't have time right now to properly perforate your smug satisfaction with being a perfectly despicable piece of shit. Luckily, it really doesn't matter, as you've just demonstrated amply what a stupid mouthpiece for casual bigotry and a sad excuse for a decent, thinking human being you are.

Oh, and strange gods is here now, so my turn on the stage as an understudy is over anyway.

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 4, 2009 6:44 PM

"...the sexism that has permeated and continues to permeate society, with deleterious effects on women and girls."

I know a lot of women and girls who would kick your ass for suggesting that a few gender-based words thrown around for color would do anything but make them giggle...like a bunch of schoolgirls. I hang out with some tough broads with bigger balls than you, obviously. Seriously, provide me with some data backing up your hysterical and patronizing claim that "gender-based" language has had measurable deleterious effects on "women and girls" (or men--in the case of words like "dick," or "balls"). At best it's an emotionally-charged generalization, based on nothing but anecdotal evidence from pansies and feminazis. At worst, like most woo, it's wholly unfalsifiable--not a scientific claim at all. It's just PC dogma, nothing more. So, can it, windbag.

Posted by: Evan Kane | November 4, 2009 6:51 PM

@The Swede

Our Sunday speakers are chosen by a committee of nine people. In July, at one of the committee member’s request, Sunsara was provisionally invited to speak on a topic of morality without gods on November 1. The formal invitation was withheld until the committee was provided with a written description of her talk.

The formal description was finally received on October 13. Some of the committee felt that the description provided was far outside the topic that was originally proposed. Sunsara was contacted about adjusting her talk to fit what the committee originally thought they were getting. She understandably refused to adjust her talk. The committee decided by a vote of 9 to 2 to cancel Sunsara as a speaker and the cancellation, with apologies, was emailed on October 19.

(As a side note, I disagreed with the decision to cancel but in a democratic organization the vote doesn’t always go the way you want it to. I even started a petition to re-invite Sunsara but only about 20% of the society signed)

From October 19 onward Ms. Taylor and her people demanded she be given the November 1 platform. Attempt after attempt was made to find a solution that, although not ideal for either side, was palatable for both. The society bent over backwards to appease this woman. She was given an October 31 platform that was well attended and a member of the society offered her home for Sunsara’s “speech in exile” on November 1. The only thing we would not agree to was having her speak on November 1. All we asked is that she not disrupt the Sunday platform. She did not budge an inch; there was no effort at compromise from her or her people.

One plain clothes police officer from the Skokie police department was at the society the morning of November 1 because some members felt threatened by the fact that Sunsara would not commit to not disrupting the Sunday program. We had no idea what a Sunsara Taylor inspired protest would entail so the decision was made to err on the side of member safety.

When Sunsara and her camera man showed up on Sunday they were asked not to enter the building, they ignored this request but no action was taken by the society and they entered privet property.

After entering the building and our auditorium, Sunsara started to give her speech and her camera man started taping. They were asked to stop and let us continue our event in our building repeatedly. They refused and it is then that we asked the single plain clothes officer for support.

When the cameraman acted aggressively toward the police officer he called for backup on his radio. Uniformed officers responded to that call. It took five police offers using mace to subdue him. One police officer was injured.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 4, 2009 7:00 PM

I know a lot of women and girls who would kick your ass for suggesting that a few gender-based words thrown around for color would do anything but make them giggle...like a bunch of schoolgirls. -caseywollberg

Slagging - Making only disparaging comments about a group;

Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 4, 2009 7:12 PM

Hey Walton #333

I thought your argumentum ad personam¹ was appropriate, thank you.

¹_{I guess tm forgot to look this one up before jumping right in. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there.}

Posted by: CJO | November 4, 2009 7:19 PM

Rancid! Slimy!

Won't someone please think of the despicable pieces of shit?

Posted by: SC, OM | November 4, 2009 7:22 PM

Hi, everyone (and apologies especially to strange gods for my disappearance)!

I hit a wall of work and flux during the past few weeks. To give you some idea,...in the past 72 hours I've undergone several major life events - moved (temporarily) to a state I had previously spent less than a weekend in (as a child); got a car for the first time in well over a decade; and started a new job. Things are fine - I deal well with change/uncertainty, and enjoy it when I'm in a decent frame of mind, as I am now. I'm happy as a clam at the shore (as I've mentioned, I'm an off-season person, and this place is photography heaven).

I've missed things/people here, and have tried to check in from time to time even though I haven't had enough to comment. This thread was highly entertaining, especially newfie’s assumptions, which I read while wrung out but so hopped up on Mountain Dew that I couldn’t sleep. All great fun. Still not as funny as this

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/09/and_now_for_a_little_local_net.php

but hilarious nonetheless. (OK, maybe it was as funny, but that one included images :)).

And it's had it all! Sexism/misogyny Bingo, Emma Goldman, Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, several of my favorite commenters, strategy, identity, ignorant and informed comments about anarchism, political morality, rudeness, ethics, people asking about ME,…! tm, CJO, strange gods, and others have made excellent comments on this thread. tm tried repeatedly to get people to engage with the substance of what Sunsara Taylor said and to make substantive criticisms of various people’s actions, but alas this appears to have been in vain.

I don’t have much to add to the DQ/AW discussion. It amazes me that people who harp on context (among other tropes) often fail to recognize the specific context in which terms were used when the issue was raised. I’ve used “drama queen” to refer to men and women in private life (and occasionally Top Chef and SYTYCD contestants) for as long as I can remember. I’ve called a man here a drama queen, and also referred to myself (probably more than once) in those terms (although I think I may have used “telenovela material” :)), speaking of my personal/blogal relationships. I’ve also joked about my own blog-whoring, and was not offended in the least when others did the same, affectionately. All of these things matter: who’s saying something, about whom, and in what context. Here, when I saw the first mention I rolled my eyes, but when I saw the DQ/AW combo my hackles went up and I saw clearly the reason it needed to be pointed out. Pinheads like newfie aren’t worth the time, but people who do care about words and their effects should think carefully about it.

Before I was able to comment, tm alluded to what I see as the crux of the issue. There’s an obvious difference between my calling my sister in private a drama queen and people characterizing the behavior of a political activist in these terms, especially when she has publicly provided a clear explanation of her actions in political and principled terms. Again, people who ignored her actual reasoning were happy to find terms in which to describe her actions as some stereotypically feminine behavior. It’s ridiculous. If we were talking about, say, Christopher Hitchens, I doubt the discussion would have taken that detour so quickly. These sorts of characterizations have been used for centuries to trivialize and depoliticize women’s (and especially radical women’s) participation in the public sphere. Calling Lindsay Lohan or some other celebrity a drama queen is one thing; calling Amy Goodman or Sabina Guzzanti one is far more problematic (even if men, less frequently, are called the same). A discussion of the relative value of different political responses and tactics – including publicity-seeking tactics – would be worthwhile, but it can’t happen when people aren’t considering these as fully political in nature but rather seeing them as expressions of individual – gendered - psychology.

As for the obviously misogynistic terms that were raised tangentially, Ophelia Benson and I exchanged some links several weeks ago of threads here and at her site where these were discussed in depth over the past couple of years, and I’ve been planning to put together a post on my blog with all of them and a few other resources. I’ll simply link to that in the future. Nothing new is ever said, and the quality of thinking of sexist-language defenders on this thread is too low to deserve an original thoughtful response. (I almost long for Louis...)

Of course the behavior of these jokers in canceling her talk was profoundly tacky and wrong. Actually, though, this is all rather exciting – seems more reminiscent of the WWI era than the ‘50s, and this earlier time was an exciting one for “our people.” Though I simply can’t believe what they did to the cameraman. Words fail me.

Walton, you’re a tiresome little pismire with zero sense of irony. As others have pointed out, for you to claim, on this thread, that tm brings nothing of substance to these discussions shows you to be a fool.

***

I know a lot of women and girls who would kick your ass for suggesting that a few gender-based words thrown around for color would do anything but make them giggle...like a bunch of schoolgirls.

So same thing about race-based words "thrown around for color" then?

Posted by: truth machine | November 4, 2009 7:34 PM

@Feynmaniac and sgbm

I quite appreciate your comments ... and I want to address a few:

He seems to believe sincerely that everyone who disagrees with him must ipso facto be either stupid or dishonest.

Yes, but there is a reason why many of the people he's called stupid enjoy his comments.

I don't believe that, and I don't think it's intellectually honest to claim that I "seem" to -- this is another example of Walton treating his own hyperbole as if it were fact. There are plenty of people here whom I have disagreed with while not giving any indication that I think they are stupid. As for dishonesty, we are all dishonest at times -- I call out instances, and when it is persistent I call people dishonest. My main target is intellectual dishonesty, and the first step in avoiding it is admitting that one is not merely capable of it but prone to it unless committed not to be.

Kraid, John, and kopd, this sort of lazy fallacy is what forces truth machine to call you stupid. Why don't you lighten his workload?

(Within the framework of the intentional stance) I'm not forced -- it's a choice. It would be nice, though, if people worked their minds harder and made a greater commitment to intellectual honesty, which I believe would result in fewer fallacies.

I, like truth machine, have a hard time believing that you thought "whore" was an insult applied equally to men and women. In fact, I think you were lying. But I understand the desire to protect ego, and if you'd like me to pretend that I think it was an honest mistake, I can do you that favor.

I noted that I consider there to be an alternative, which I later described as keeping one's mind shut and averting one's gaze from the evidence.

I, like truth machine, have a hard time believing... Argument from incredulity.

Yes, that's true.

No, an argument from incredulity is of the form "I don't believe X, therefore X must be false". There's nothing fallacious about simply finding something hard to believe and thus doubting it -- the existence of fairies, for instance, or someone sincerely believing that "whore" is gender-neutral. But kopd at one point said that he meant to say "not gender exclusive" rather than "gender-neutral". Of course these are radically different and the substitution affects the whole chain of debate. I can easily believe that kopd sincerely made this mistake, but at the same time I think it's fair to characterize such a mistake as dumb and intellectually careless.

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 4, 2009 7:41 PM

"So same thing about race-based words "thrown around for color" then?"

Red herring. But if you want to talk about it...why is it okay for black men to refer to each other as "nigger?" and why has it become acceptable for anyone to say, "Whatup my niggaz?" Or do you live on a different planet? Please tell us how you would enforce your new, static PC language (on your planet). This should be interesting.

Posted by: Acronym Jim | November 4, 2009 7:47 PM

KRAID@45..erm..something:

Amidoinitrite?

Yes Kraid, you're doing it trite.

Posted by: truth machine | November 4, 2009 7:50 PM

Seriously, provide me with some data backing up your hysterical and patronizing claim that "gender-based" language has had measurable deleterious effects on "women and girls"

That wasn't my claim. If you simply look at the words you quoted, you will see what I actually said has those effects. For the full context, see #378 -- but read for comprehension this time.

Posted by: Kraid | November 4, 2009 8:03 PM

Desert Son wrote:

2) Adopt the invective, and make sure your responses have content, and also invective.

strange gods before me wrote:

The idiot Kraid tried to excuse "inadvertently" sexist insults

Bullshit, Kraid. No one here has said "don't hurt people." Quit trolling.

strange gods before me wrote:

Kraid, [...] this sort of lazy fallacy is what forces truth machine to call you stupid.

strange gods before me wrote:

I see no evidence of [unwillingness to actually engage the other person in a meaningful discussion]. Truth machine makes plenty of substantive comments in addition to saying bad words.

Where I disagree though is that the use of insults isn't a just a distraction, IMO. A personal insult is usually a way of dismissing someone. So yeah, TM does have content amid the trash talk, as do you, and as do I in this post, but lashing at someone like that is rarely an indication that one has any interest in a two-way discussion.

Posted by: Copernicus | November 4, 2009 8:04 PM

casey

why is it okay for black men to refer to each other as "nigger?" and why has it become acceptable for anyone to say, "Whatup my niggaz?"

Is it really? Who says? Certainly not the folk with whom I teach nor is it acceptable for the students I do teach...

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 4, 2009 8:08 PM

"casey

why is it okay for black men to refer to each other as "nigger?" and why has it become acceptable for anyone to say, "Whatup my niggaz?"

Is it really? Who says? Certainly not the folk with whom I teach nor is it acceptable for the students I do teach..."

Appeal to authority. So what? Go out on the streets and try to enforce your classroom ethic. See how far it gets you. There sure are a lot of authoritarians in the PC camp.

Posted by: Copernicus | November 4, 2009 8:15 PM

Excuse me? Have we met for you to assume anything about my ethics or politics, or are you blurring the lines between posters?

I was simply asking you why you seemed to state that the use of the word "nigger" is acceptable between people of color.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | November 4, 2009 8:18 PM

#512...and here we go again with the appeals for pity.

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 4, 2009 8:23 PM

"Excuse me? Have we met for you to assume anything about my ethics or politics, or are you blurring the lines between posters?

I was simply asking you why you seemed to state that the use of the word "nigger" is acceptable between people of color."

No, you weren't "simply" doing that. You were appealing to the authority of your academic sub-culture. It just doesn't apply in the wider world, where, indeed, it is widely acceptable among young black men to call each other "nigger." It is also a linguistic phenomenon of some notoriety that the phrase "whatup my niggaz" is extremely popular. Why do you get to say this is wrong? Because you teach for a living?

Posted by: SC, OM | November 4, 2009 8:33 PM

I'm struggling with my degree at the moment, feeling stressed and miserable, and I don't have much patience with you telling me what a waste of space I am.

Who attacked whom on this thread?

[BTW, as I recall, tm explained to you that he was describing you as "not particularly bright" relative to other commenters here, who are particularly bright (I know I am :P). Not a vicious slur, but an honest statement of opinion. Why you would be so concerned about what some random blog commenter thinks of your level of intelligence is beyond me. And really, all that matters is what you do with your intelligence, and you have plenty of time for that, assuming you stop writing like such a fucking idiot. That's the last I'll say about you here. If you want to ponder yourself more, get a fucking journal.]

Posted by: Copernicus | November 4, 2009 8:38 PM

Because I teach does not mean that I am necessarily restricted by your assumption of what my "academic sub-culture" is nor does it mean that my views, or thoughts, or ideology are not subsumed by some other "sub-culture" that extends beyond the confines of a classroom... the fact of the matter is that if some people act a certain way it does not make it right, does not somehow ignore the social responsibility of avoiding feeding into racial stereotypes, nor does it make it "acceptable"... your acceptance of it makes it acceptable to you and perhaps unwittingly or worse (because you seem to have some measure of logic) with some degree of calculation, contributes to the prejudice, ignorance, and thoughtlessness of institutionalized racism

Posted by: kopd | November 4, 2009 8:52 PM

TM said:

But kopd at one point said that he meant to say "not gender exclusive" rather than "gender-neutral". Of course these are radically different and the substitution affects the whole chain of debate. I can easily believe that kopd sincerely made this mistake, but at the same time I think it's fair to characterize such a mistake as dumb and intellectually careless.

That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me. I'd also have to concede that there's truth to it. At the time that I made the original comment, I didn't think about how different "neutral" and "not exclusive" really are from each other and I said the first one that came to mind. That was not wise! In fact, it was dumb. That's how mistakes are made. It took me a while to realize that that's a lot of what we were arguing over. That's partly because I was angry and focusing on tone over content. It was when I spoke to my wife about the subject that I realized just how dumb it was. She's good at that, and I value that about her.

I spent entirely too much time being unjustly angered over this thread. I was probably more angered because subconsciously I knew I'd screwed up and was trying to get myself to admit it. There are few people who can anger me more than I do.

Posted by: John Morales | November 4, 2009 8:59 PM

@506:

Hey, what about this use of the seemingly unoffensive word "girl:"

"Bob, you throw like a girl!"

You've just shown a perfect example of unthinking sexism, and you find it "seemingly unoffensive"?

--

PS You should be aware that females, can throw as well as males. Throwing is a learned skill.

Posted by: SC, OM | November 4, 2009 9:03 PM

Important?? Important?? My God, Man!! Call 9-11!! Call in the Coast Guard!! There is no time to waste!! Lives are at stake!!

See tm's posts @ #s 57 and 269, and my first here. You understand nothing of...well, anything. You're a hopeless, witless bigot.

Posted by: Copernicus | November 4, 2009 9:07 PM

John, I agree with you- there is a difference between using the word "girl", obviously not offensive in of itself, and the context in which it is used or the intent with which it is used... just as my discussion with casey concerning the unwitting or ignorant acceptance of terms that contribute or maintain a racist [or sub: sexist] condition

Posted by: Newfie | November 4, 2009 9:11 PM

No Stan.. you created the gender-neutral issue that derailed it.

Posted by: truth machine | November 4, 2009 9:21 PM

You've just shown a perfect example of unthinking sexism, and you find it "seemingly unoffensive"?

John John John. I spoke of intellectual honesty and as someone committed to it I must point out that you have misinterpreted casey, whose point (the validity of which I'm not going to address here) was that you can form offensive phrases from unoffensive words like "girl".

Posted by: truth machine | November 4, 2009 9:29 PM

@Kraid

To summarize several previous posts, TM and others were contending that terms such as "drama queen" fall under the "hate speech" umbrella and therefore were verboten.

I never claimed either that "drama queen" is hate speech or that it is verboten.

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 4, 2009 9:32 PM

"@506:

Hey, what about this use of the seemingly unoffensive word "girl:"

"Bob, you throw like a girl!"

You've just shown a perfect example of unthinking sexism, and you find it "seemingly unoffensive"?

--

PS You should be aware that females, can throw as well as males. Throwing is a learned skill."

First of all, way to miss the point. The phrase "seemingly unoffensive" refers to the word "girl" not to the phrase I followed up with, which is manifestly clear from what I posted. Now, let me explain it to you...

You people are making words into ethical entities. I pointed out a word that could be used in an offensive way and a non-offensive way: "girl." Now, since you agree that "Bob, you throw like a girl!" is an offensive construct, I challenge you to admit that "girl" in and of itself is not an unethical term (as thought there were such a thing). By extension (since you seem to put some emphasis on the context in which words are used), you must also be prepared to concede that words are not unethical, behavior is. Words are ethics-neutral because they exhibit no behavior.

This little exercise in rational thought (had you recognized it for what it was) demonstrated that for PC-nazis, context is only recognized as the salient ethical factor when it is convenient to their ideology to do so. Otherwise, words are evil.

Secondly, this "unthinking sexism" bullshit has me steaming. You actually condescend to presume that people who use words you don't like do so without thinking? Or is it that they need to think the "right" (i.e., your) thoughts?

Next, girls can throw as well as boys...if they're trained to throw like boys. Yeah, so what? Little boys throw a lot, typically little girls don't as much. Does that observation make me an evil misogynist? What if I were female? Would that make a difference? Throwing around epithets (presumably at random, or worse, based on an ideology) is a bad way to make a logical case for what is ethical behavior.

Posted by: truth machine | November 4, 2009 9:36 PM

@Kraid

Where I disagree though is that the use of insults isn't a just a distraction, IMO. A personal insult is usually a way of dismissing someone. So yeah, TM does have content amid the trash talk, as do you, and as do I in this post, but lashing at someone like that is rarely an indication that one has any interest in a two-way discussion.

This is a good point. My use of invective is usually when I've encountered so much bad faith or intellectual laziness that I no longer consider dialog effective and would just as soon that my correspondent give up and go away. A fair way to characterize my posts at that point is contempt-laced rebuttal.

Posted by: truth machine | November 4, 2009 9:46 PM

No Stan.. you created the gender-neutral issue that derailed it.

Verifiable fact: the first occurrence in this thread of the word "neutral" is #114 by kopd:

Especially since the word "whore" is gender-neutral.

a claim that he has since abandoned. And the first response to that statement was #123 by CJO, to whom you abjectly apologized in #214.

Posted by: Copernicus | November 4, 2009 9:47 PM

casey,

I must first point out that my intent is not at all to throw out the word "racism" in order to be fallatious but my position certainly is to elucidate the pervasive nature of racism and that it is so embedded in individual and organisational contexts that we really must be aware of the power dynamics of prejudice in this way... taking offense at the word "nigger" and, as Bill Cosby, taking a stand that supports positive images of young black men by removing those words or images ("saggy pants") or assumptions that have been historically used to subjugate or repress people of color, is certainly not the same as enforcing some "collegiate" ethic upon language or values... as it happens, I do live and work in a black neighborhood, and have done so both in inner-city London (Brixton) and here in an impoverished part of DC...

I do understand that you are "data-driven" in this blog (and for the most part, especially when challenging assertions and arguments posited by the Ray Comforts of this world, subscribe to that notion) and when I have the time to direct you to what I believe will illustrate my argument while still satisfying your need to have something more tangible to argue against rather than consructing your own validation, I will so do...

by the way, I am myself mixed-race of African heritage and so I do believe that I am not only speaking from experience but also obliged to ensure that my kids are able to navigate a world with power and education (both perhaps in this argument, synonymous)...

Posted by: SC, OM | November 4, 2009 9:56 PM

Evidence, please.

Is your serious contention that racist/sexist/anti-gay speech and writing has no ill effects? Again, would you say the same thing about race-based language that you have about gender-based language? What is your position?

Posted by: John Morales | November 4, 2009 9:59 PM

caseywollberg, yes I missed your point badly.

... you must also be prepared to concede that words are not unethical, behavior is.

I don't just concede that, I endorse it.

However, the choice of terminology one employs is behaviour.

this "unthinking sexism" bullshit has me steaming. You actually condescend to presume that people who use words you don't like do so without thinking?

It's not that I don't like particular words, it's that I give credence to the idea that language influences culture and in particular cognitive classifications (cf. Orwell, Sapir-Whorf).

And yes, I think word usage is often done without thinking.

I note it's not a presumption on my part, it's a reasoned conclusion.

Posted by: Newfie | November 4, 2009 10:04 PM

Too many stupid people on this thread.

Couldn't agree more. You can spell it out for some, and they still don't get. It's like they've lived a different life. Must be a lack of social skills. Formative years weren't spent wisely, focusing on the wrong things. I've seen it time and time again.

Posted by: SC, OM | November 4, 2009 10:04 PM

Ahem... Pussy.

(Sorry; I couldn't resist.)

Indeed. It's amazing how bigots are almost compelled to put their repulsiveness on display. We get it. You're dumb and despicable. Now piss off.

Posted by: Copernicus | November 4, 2009 10:12 PM

casey,

I will concede that in some contexts reappropriation is empowering, however with regard to "nigger" or "nigga" (you may argue differently, but essentially the same) it is still a term rooted in ignominy and vile hatred- certainly the NAACP condemn both terms equally:

J. Douglas Allen-Taylor. New Word Order, Metro, April 9, 1998.

Posted by: John Morales | November 4, 2009 10:14 PM

caseywollberg:

Hint: context plays a role in speech and writing, whereas words are context-free.

That's sophistry.

Words per se may be context-free, but usage of words to communicate never is.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 4, 2009 10:19 PM

Funny that South Park is "addressing" the use of words and their intended meaning on the episode tonight.

Posted by: truth machine | November 4, 2009 10:22 PM

Stan if you're gonna play the #30 game, we could be here all night... cause that's where it all started...

#30 is about "sexism and various other stupidities", not the gender neutrality distraction that I referred to in my comment to SC. Of course, implicit in that post is that I think that "drama queen" is not gender neutral as it was applied to Sunsara Taylor. That can be argued, but not relevantly to this discussion, which is about my regret about being distracted by the gender-neutrality issue. I certainly don't regret discussing sexism applied to Taylor as I think it's a central point. That you can't sensibly argue, as I am an incontrovertible authority on my own regrets. So feel free to catch some shuteye; I plan to soon.

Posted by: truth machine | November 4, 2009 10:30 PM

That's sophistry.

Or a strawman. No one has claimed that anything they have said about any word holds in all possible contexts -- like, say, picking up Scrabble letters that happen to form some word.

Posted by: truth machine | November 4, 2009 10:41 PM

Ahem... Pussy.
(Sorry; I couldn't resist.)

The content of this thread provides context for that particular choice of example, so it actually goes against your point. And had you chosen some other word divorced from the content, it would have failed to communicate ... for instance, you could have just written "Ahem" or "Sorry" or "resist" but no one would have known what you were getting at.

Posted by: truth machine | November 4, 2009 10:55 PM

I'm struggling with my degree at the moment, feeling stressed and miserable

Walton, I told you once before that I sincerely hoped that you would seek professional counseling -- I feared for your well-being. I'm glad that you did, though it's somewhat ironic that you passed the suggestion back to me.

and I don't have much patience with you telling me what a waste of space I am.

Then why did you put so much energy into attacking me -- an attack that I largely ignored, for which you should be grateful given what you write here.

See, this is why I express such contempt -- because you are so appallingly intellectually dishonest.

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 4, 2009 10:59 PM

"Ahem... Pussy.
(Sorry; I couldn't resist.)

The content of this thread provides context for that particular choice of example, so it actually goes against your point."

Uh...no. My point is that context is everything. Since we both know I was making a joke and not intentionally degrading women (the context), then I was with my use of the word "pussy" not being degrading to women. I know you aren't so woo-engorged as to think that there is some platonic realm in which words have a particular meaning with some power to enact that meaning on earth. Right?

"That's sophistry.

Or a strawman."

Yes, strawman, maybe (certainly not sophistry). But it does seem like you all are saying that we should not use certain words (regardless of context) because they always mean this certain thing, and that meaning will necessarily and at all times (regardless of context) translate into unethical behavior. This idea is patently silly.

"No one has claimed that anything they have said about any word holds in all possible contexts -- like, say, picking up Scrabble letters that happen to form some word."

Or, like, say, using some "nasty," non-PC, "offensive" word in some context that has nothing to do with unethical behavior. In that case, you should have no problem with using non-PC words in contexts that have nothing to do with intentionally abusing someone or some group. Right?

Posted by: Falyne, FCD | November 4, 2009 11:07 PM

*delurks*

*grabs popcorn*

Amazing thread is amazing. Welcome back, TM.

This is one of the things that has always made Pharyngula feel like home to me (even if I haven't been commenting, like, at all for a rather long time.) Anti-feminist bullshit just doesn't fly here, same as any other bullshit.

Attacking a woman using stereotypes about women (she's overly emotional, she's just demanding attention, she's a nag, et alia) reinforces the use of those stereotypes to judge and condemn other women. We don't like that, because it's not in our best interest to let you keep doing that without calling you out.

It's like how it is with Ann Coulter. Sweet Ceiling Cat, I do not like to defend Ann Coulter. She's a horrid, obnoxious, and selfish troll at best, assuming she isn't stupid enough to believe her own tripe. I hate her with the fire of a thousand suns. But if she's attacked on the basis that she's an ugly bitch, well, that's a weapon that can be wielded against any other physically-human and not-demure woman. Which includes me. So, I rather think it sucks. And people who are not women who genuinely care about me tend to learn that it sucks, too.

Posted by: truth machine | November 4, 2009 11:18 PM

I was addressing that implication directly, namely, that there is a strong correlation between the use of non-PC language (as defined by you, I guess) and the deleterious effects of sexism.

Actually, that isn't even coherent. It's like talking about a correlation between fatty diets and the harmful effects of cigarettes.

If you want to talk about harmful effects of sexist language, it seems that Desert Son has addressed it. But that's not what #378 was about -- it just isn't.

Posted by: Desert Son | November 4, 2009 11:21 PM

Meant to include this in my post, but got lost in all the formatting: welcome back, strange gods before me and SC,OM! Congratulations on new job, horseless carriage, and, uh, temporary relocation.

No monarchs,

Robert

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 4, 2009 11:29 PM

"...we think in words..."

This is not true. I'm too tired to do anything about it. Good night.

Posted by: Falyne, FCD | November 4, 2009 11:31 PM

Like SC pointed out earlier, casey, speech IS a behavior.

It's not "some PC crusade" to point out that, if you actually cared about the people you're talking about, you wouldn't use language that unfairly* hurts them. We're not talking about censorship here. We're saying that if you don't self-censor some things, well, that tells us something about you.

*Please note this word. The crux of the difference between isms and blasphemy lies within it.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 4, 2009 11:40 PM

Since we both know I was making a joke and not intentionally degrading women

Posted by: Newfie | November 4, 2009 11:42 PM

You know who else is always looking to be offended at the smallest, usually wrongly perceived thing? Bill Donohue

oh irony, how I love thee

Posted by: truth machine | November 4, 2009 11:48 PM

You know who else is always looking to be offended at the smallest, usually wrongly perceived thing? Bill Donohue

"They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

oh irony, how I love thee

You and Alanis Morissette.

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 4, 2009 11:49 PM

"But that's not what #378 was about -- it just isn't."

I wasn't addressing 378, but your entire argument that certain words, regardless of context, inherently and necessarily give rise to certain behaviors. This was abundantly clear, and I think you are being disingenuous to pretend not to notice it.

I will read at least some of the ostensibly scientific articles provided by desert son (and thank you for your efforts, Robert, at enlightening me), but as it stands I remain skeptical and of a pure, anti-racist (as copernicus prefers it) and anti-sexist and anti-theist heart, despite several baseless accusations to the contrary. Now to sleep.

Posted by: Falyne, FCD | November 4, 2009 11:54 PM

And I gotta say, "it was just a joke!" isn't a defense, it's a red flag the size of Texas.

Posted by: truth machine | November 5, 2009 12:00 AM

"But that's not what #378 was about -- it just isn't."
I wasn't addressing 378, but your entire argument that certain words, regardless of context, inherently and necessarily give rise to certain behaviors. This was abundantly clear, and I think you are being disingenuous to pretend not to notice it.

What we have here is an extraordinary case of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I've only had 3 hours of sleep in the last 36 but I still have many times the mental competence of this idiot. He quotes from #378, repeatedly makes erroneous claims about what I meant by it, then says he wasn't addressing it, but rather an argument that I never made -- not even close -- and don't accept. If he's not addressing #378 that what post is he addressing where I supposedly made this argument?

Shit, why do I bother with such morons?

Posted by: Newfie | November 5, 2009 12:07 AM

repeatedly makes erroneous claims about what I meant by it

maybe he missed the context and intent there, Stan... could happened to anybody who reads into things what they want to read. Did he call you an "idiot" an assault your character when he missed your intent? Cause that's always fun too, eh?

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 5, 2009 12:11 AM

You know who else is always looking to be offended at the smallest, usually wrongly perceived thing?

Posted by: Newfie | November 5, 2009 12:15 AM

Pussy - one who renege on a challenge... or a "chicken".
Pussyfooting is another word.

If people are looking to take offence at common language like this, they are doing exactly what Donohue does. Sorry if you don't agree, but that's the signal your sending out about yourself, whether you realize it or not. Deal with it.

Posted by: Falyne, FCD | November 5, 2009 12:17 AM

Copernicus,

I hadn't, actually, but google and wikipedia just informed me. That's actually a fairly heartwarming story, as it looked like the guy genuinely "got it" afterwards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_the_word_%22niggardly%22#David_Howard_incident

Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 5, 2009 12:19 AM

(and thank you Copernicus for the ring species info the other day!)

Posted by: truth machine | November 5, 2009 12:24 AM

"The content of this thread provides context for that particular choice of example, so it actually goes against your point."
Uh...no. My point is that context is everything. Since we both know I was making a joke and not intentionally degrading women (the context), then I was with my use of the word "pussy" not being degrading to women.

The idiot managed to quite miss the point. Regardless of his intent, his particular chosen word communicates his (failed) point precisely because it refers to a connotation degrading to women. Had he instead written "Ahem ... puppy", no one would have known what the heck his point was (or if they did some meta-thinking and recognized "puppy" as a referent of sorts to "pussy", he's back in the same soup).

I know you aren't so woo-engorged as to think that there is some platonic realm in which words have a particular meaning with some power to enact that meaning on earth. Right?

An odd (that is, stupidly self-contradictory) thing to say when he insists that I have argued precisely that.

Posted by: Copernicus | November 5, 2009 12:26 AM

unlike Lesser Black-backed Gulls and Herring Gulls, the two ends can in fact breed!

You are entirely welcome Maggie, you plethodontid salamander, you...!

Posted by: truth machine | November 5, 2009 12:33 AM

This whole debate has been over the assertion, made on your side

I'm not on a "side", you stupid fucking cretin. For each person, there are some things I disagree with and some things I agree with -- even with you.

that the use of non-PC words, regardless of context, entails unethical behavior. If you are not making this argument, then disavow it and you won't have to bother with "morons" like me anymore.

I have repeatedly disavowed it, you troll piece of shit.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 5, 2009 12:37 AM

Pussy - one who renege on a challenge... or a "chicken".
Pussyfooting is another word.

If people are looking to take offence at common language like this, they are doing exactly what Donohue does. Sorry if you don't agree, but that's the signal your sending out about yourself, whether you realize it or not. Deal with it.

Posted by: Janine The Ineffable, OM | November 5, 2009 12:38 AM

Posted by: Falyne, FCD | November 5, 2009 12:25 AM

The whole POINT behind using "pussy" at a man is the idea that the VERY WORST thing a man could be... is womanly. It is used when a man is a chicken.... because cowardice is a 'womanly' trait.

Seriously, dude, that defense is an own-goal.

Tell me about it. I wince every time I hear one of my sisters yell at their sons that they are acting like girls. That's right, it is some women teaching young boys that there is something wrong with being female.

Posted by: Falyne, FCD | November 5, 2009 12:43 AM

(That last was at Newfie @604- there were some intervening posts added)

And, yeah, that drives me up the freaking wall too, Janine.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 5, 2009 12:45 AM

When I say something misogynistic, you'll damn well know its intent, as I clear showed, way back... the point of which was missed many of these people here that are more than happy to tell you how high their IQ is, btw. So when they miss the point, they attack other's intelligence.
If your gonna pick apart my language, project your own bias onto it, and feign offence, then you are acting like Donohue. Though, I can understand why Bill never gets it, he's a feckin' idjit... so he doesn't usually attack others intelligence. He just usually throws a hissy fit.

Posted by: cruithne | November 5, 2009 12:48 AM

Newfie

In all legal cases where racist or sexist actions are a contributory factor it has been established that the way something is received takes precedence over any "intent" claimed by the person responsible for the actions.

Saying "but I didn't mean it like that" doesn't wash with the courts, and for good reason, it is no defence. Your posts on this subject are reactionary in every sense of the word, no amount of pleading your case on the basis of your egotistical self image are going to cut any ice here.

You set out to offend, and when you achieved your intent you started complaining that you were hard done by.
Grow up.

Posted by: Newfie | November 5, 2009 12:49 AM

Newfie, if you had bothered to look up "pussy" in a dictionary, you would know damn well it is derived from the slang term for "vagina" and that using the word "pussy" to mean "cowardly" simultaneously assigns inferiority to women's vaginas. It makes not one bit of rational sense and is plainly bigoted. Then, "pussyfooting" is all about cats, not the same at all!

If you had bothered to understand the vernacular, you won't have to go looking up root origins to words in dictionaries, so you can get yourself upset by them. How many word or phrases to you use throughout a day? Do you know all the possible meanings for those words and phrases? Or do you use the words and phrases, as you understand them and intend them to mean?

Posted by: Cruithne | November 5, 2009 12:56 AM

Another thing Newfie.

A few days ago on another forum I made a comment which I felt was humorous and in keeping with the general tone of that particular thread. To my horror, one woman I respect greatly took offence at my post, and what's worse, three other women who were lurking on the thread came out of hiding to support her complaint.

So I don't claim to be free from sexism on occasion, I am fallible but where we differ was in my reaction. I apologised immediately but asked them to explain to me why it was offensive, not because i was defending my comment, rather because I knew I had caused offence and I wanted to know where i was going wrong in order that I didn't do it again in future.

It's about being an adult and taking responsibility for your actions, I suggest you try it on occasion.

Posted by: Newfie | November 5, 2009 1:04 AM

Ironically, you and others who are belaboring the PC point are the ones who are irrational in this case, just like Bill Donohue.

So, we should change our vernacular, because you can't understand intent, got it! Language police much?

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 5, 2009 1:06 AM

"I don't give a damn what you want, you pathetic sack of lying shit. But I can guarantee that you are not long for this blog -- the hammer will fall on you."

So you're a blowhard sycophant, too. Big surprise. When did I lie, by the way? See, that makes you the "sack of lying shit." Whatever, friend. I don't need to discuss this with you. You showed yourself to be a sophist early on, anyway.

"In all legal cases where racist or sexist actions are a contributory factor it has been established that the way something is received takes precedence over any "intent" claimed by the person responsible for the actions.

Saying "but I didn't mean it like that" doesn't wash with the courts, and for good reason, it is no defence. Your posts on this subject are reactionary in every sense of the word, no amount of pleading your case on the basis of your egotistical self image are going to cut any ice here.

You set out to offend, and when you achieved your intent you started complaining that you were hard done by.
Grow up."

God, this is a bunch of bullshit. Set out to offend? How the hell do you know? And what do court cases regarding sexist and racist *actions* have to do with using words like "pussy," and "bitch?" You know what else doesn't wash with the courts? False accusations. Grow up.

Posted by: Newfie | November 5, 2009 1:15 AM

But I can guarantee that you are not long for this blog -- the hammer will fall on you.

I've seen this a few times here, Stan. I'll tell you how it is perceived by others, "You better watch it, Mister.. Or I'm telling Mom."
That's the vibe it gives out.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 5, 2009 1:22 AM

If you had bothered to understand the vernacular, you won't have to go looking up root origins to words in dictionaries, so you can get yourself upset by them. How many word or phrases to you use throughout a day? Do you know all the possible meanings for those words and phrases? Or do you use the words and phrases, as you understand them and intend them to mean?

As for the troll #618, what a coincidence that a word making fun of fat people transformed into a homonym for female anatomy. We've been through that discussion over the origins of "pussy" before, troll. Kindly fuck off now.

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 5, 2009 1:22 AM

"Obvious troll is obvious."

Only a fool would say such a thing. I subscribe to Pharyngula, and I thoroughly enjoy reading PZ's blog posts. Here I am, blithely reading along in this discussion about some female madman (is that okay to say, PC police, since it doesn't paint women in a bad light?) and, what the hell? An argument about political correctness breaks out. In other words, I'm no more a troll than you are. So, the next time you see something "obvious," maybe you should think twice--like a reasonable person would.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 5, 2009 1:40 AM

No, the tantrum was the intended misogynistic language, that I was rightly called out for.
Swing and miss again.
And typos aside, all of my words are in plain easily understandable English too.

So, we should change our vernacular, because you can't understand intent, got it! Language police much?

The mind boggles... but I'm getting to understand... you wear your own blinders.

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 5, 2009 1:44 AM

"PZ doesn't like me and would be likely to do the opposite of anything I suggested to him."

So, I'm safe? I mean, I wouldn't want to get "the hammer" dropped on me or anything. Whatever would I do with my time if I couldn't post comments on PZ Meyers' blog? I guess I'd have to go back to beating my wife, kicking puppies, and arranging lynch mobs in the deep south. Because that's what we liberal English speakers like to do when we aren't busy degrading everybody (else) with unapproved curse words.

Posted by: Falyne, FCD | November 5, 2009 1:58 AM

There's really only one unforgivable crime around here, only one thing guaranteed to "bring down the hammer", and that's boring PZ.

Generally, he keeps us all well-chummed with trollflesh. He's conscientious like that.

But eventually, if you don't vary your arguments (or, better yet, show any sign of comprehending what we try and get through your thick skull) you'll wind up boring everybody. And that's bad.

Also, come on, this place is as lewd, blasphemous, combative, and antithetically un-PC as any you'll find on the internet. Honestly, that's WHY you're getting flamed. You can't argue in one breath that we're the language police, and whine about how mean everyone's being in the next. You're free to say whatever you like, and we're all free to call you a douche.

Posted by: truth machine | November 5, 2009 2:00 AM

I'm not a misogynist, as some of the experts here judged me to be, by only a few posts prior to that tirade.

Your tirade proves otherwise; it was a sincere expression of your feelings.

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 5, 2009 2:04 AM

But I know how it's done, don't I? :P -Newfie

It's late on the rock, and must go for now.

Posted by: truth machine | November 5, 2009 2:08 AM

There's really only one unforgivable crime around here, only one thing guaranteed to "bring down the hammer", and that's boring PZ.

Indeed it's casey's insipidity that most likely would bring PZ to ban him ... if he doesn't lose survivor first due to his severe lack of social intelligence. (People sometimes say this of me, and yet here in this thread one can see a number of people posting at length in my defense -- I believe that certain choices and decisions of mine play a role in that).

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 5, 2009 2:09 AM

"Severe Dunning-Kruger -- you really have no clue how stupid you are."

Right back at you, sport. See how clever we are? I'm sorry I don't have any fancy terminology to make myself appear superior to you, but I do know what "Dunning-Kruger" refers to, if that wins me any points in this petty little pissing contest.

Sophistry really makes me tired...

Posted by: cruithne | November 5, 2009 2:16 AM

You're free to say whatever you like, and we're all free to call you a douche.

Succinct and to the point.

Here's what amuses me. Some people just don't get that being free to say something doesn't mean free to say it and not be challenged on it. So we get the ridiculous arguments about language police when in fact what we have is what's commonly known as an argument.
It's not that they're being censored that bothers them, and that's true by dint of the fact that no one has been censored. What bothers them is not being allowed to treat this blog as if it's their own private plaything, where they get to run amok with their privilege and prejudice, that's what really pisses them off and that's why we get the angry petulant outbursts.

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 5, 2009 2:22 AM

"Your tirade proves otherwise; it was a sincere expression of your feelings."

And you call Dunning-Kruger on me?

"Also, come on, this place is as lewd, blasphemous, combative, and antithetically un-PC as any you'll find on the internet. Honestly, that's WHY you're getting flamed. You can't argue in one breath that we're the language police, and whine about how mean everyone's being in the next. You're free to say whatever you like, and we're all free to call you a douche."

Who are you talking about, me? I don't argue that you can't call me a douche (you do realize that refers to a female hygiene product, right? Shouldn't I be honored to be a douche? Why is it derogatory--and if it is, then why are you using it to demean women?) if you feel so inclined--but as someone who agrees that certain forms of language should be off-limits, it's rather hypocritical for you to take the more liberal stance when offensive words you like to use are the subject. Don't you think?

Posted by: aratina cage of the OM | November 5, 2009 2:24 AM

Newfie, one more thing, it isn't about the origin of the words, it is about the connotation of the words when first read. That's why you put a disclaimer on #81, du-uh. That's also why you mixed up "pussy" with "pussyfooting". :P And in #81, you wrote:

she has demonstrated herself to be both a Drama Queen, and an Attention Whore. No sexism intentionally inferred or intended. I... have used these... terms to describe actions, not gender.

As for calling you by your name, neat little trick their, me boy! And here I thought "newfie" was a term of endearment because when you linked to the moose song, tons of newfies popped up on YouTube. I had no fucking clue that "newfie" had anything to do with Newfoundland before that point (or if I did, I had forgotten), not to mention no indication on YouTube that it was a slur. Thanks for the education.

Posted by: caseywollberg | November 5, 2009 2:26 AM

"Right back at you, sport. See how clever we are?

Not at all -- that's a facet of D-K, that you not only do not realize your ineptness, but you're a poor judge of the aptitude of your superiors."

Exactly. And I could say the same thing about you, with as much credence.

"I'm sorry I don't have any fancy terminology to make myself appear superior to you,

It's not a matter of terminology but rather of evidence."

Exactly. There is none. Which was my whole point. Wasn't I done responding to you?

Posted by: Falyne, FCD | November 5, 2009 2:34 AM

Also, TM @641, you're certainly not always nice, nor are you always right*, but you're absolutely NEVER boring. :-)

*Dunno if you remember an argument we once had about the definition of terrorism, but I certainly remember locking horns with you. Fun times, heh.